May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
Some have tried to debunk the view that the West implicitly or explicitly promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would
not expand east after German reunification and
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact). These claims are misleading and obfuscate the historical record of at least a clear understanding,
if not promise that there should be no NATO expansion eastward in any way, shape or form. At the very least the West made a implied
commitment not to expand NATO east. It is more precise to say, however, that the West gave an explicit verbal, that is, unwritten
guarantee not to expand NATO beyond a united Germany; something both sides understood. This broken promise or understanding and the
expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders has led now to the misnamed ‘new cold war.’
One commentator, for example, argues there was no promise, claiming the discussions only touched on NATO deployments to the territory
of what would become the former GDR after German reunification. But the writer obfuscates the meaning of a recent Gorbachev statement
in making his claim. He quotes Gorbachev from an RBTH interview this way: “‘The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all,
and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures
would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification.
Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation
was done.
And
fulfilled'”.
To be sure, Pifer acknowledges that Gorbachev also said that NATO’s expansion beyond Germany was “a violation of the spirit of
the statements and assurances made to us
in 1990”.
The vagueness lies in the fact, as Gorbachev notes, that NATO expansion per se was never explicitly discussed. How can something
that was not discussed be considered a violation of a trust when it later happens? Because it was assumed by all sides and implied
by various Western statements that the West understood that USSR was opposed to NATO expanding to the former GDR’s territory, no
less its expanding much farther east, and that per the 1990 discussions it was implicitly understood that NATO would not expanding
to GDR territory or anywhere further east.
This becomes evident in reading a more precise rendering of the Baker-Gorbachev exchange than the one Pifer presents, and RBTH
managed to get Gorbachev to expound on. In reality, new archival documents show that Baker said to Gorbachev: “Would you prefer to
see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO,
with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?” As one author notes: “Baker’s
phrasing of the second, more attractive option meant that NATO’s jurisdiction would not even extend to East Germany, since NATO’s
‘present position’ in February 1990 remained exactly where it had been throughout the Cold War: with its eastern edge on the line
still dividing the two Germanies. In other words, a united Germany would be, de facto, half in and half out of the alliance. According
to Baker, Gorbachev responded, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’ This means that their discussion
implied an assumption that the discussion was about any kind of expansion anywhere to the east, whether in Germany or
elsewhere. Other statements
and discussions further suggest that the assumption was there should be no NATO expansion eastward in any way. That assumption means
a tacit agreement was reached.
An Assumed and Implied Promise Broken
At a minimum, the West certainly gave the impression during talks on Germany’s reunification in early 1990 that it was promising
Moscow that NATO at the least for some time would not take in any new members besides reunified Germany or take advantage of the
disappearance of the Warsaw Pact in any way. This approximates the position of then US Ambassador to Moscow
Jack Matlock. Western diplomats’
language in discussions with Soviet officials, moreover, resembled full-fledged promises not to expand NATO beyond Germany, and it
is no surprise the Soviets perceived it that way. For all intents and purposes, there was a de facto promise not to expand NATO after
united Germany’s incorporation into the Atlantic alliance. The sum of the discussions at the time makes this clear.
On 9 November 1990, for example, US Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in the Kremlin’s St.
Catherine Hall that NATO would not expand beyond reunified Germany “one inch in the eastern direction” if NATO even maintained its
presence in Germany after reunification. He added: “We think that consultations and discussions within the framework of the mechanism
‘Two Plus Four’ should give a guarantee that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spreading of the military organization
NATO to the East” (Yevgenii Primakov, Gody v Bolshoi Politike (Moscow: Sovershenno Sekretno, 1999), pp. 231-32 and Uwe Klussman,
Matthias Schepp, and Klaus Wiegrefe, “NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?,” Der Spiegel,
26 November 2009). Baker now claims he never made any such promise. However, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher’s
chief of staff, Frank Elbe, has written that when he met with Baker on 2 February 1990, the two agreed that there was to be no NATO
expansion to the East and this would be communicated to the Soviets to facilitate their acceptance of reunified Germany’s entrance
into the alliance (Klussman, Schepp, and Wiegrefe, “NATO’s Easteward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?”). In his
1995 memoir, Gorbachev remembers Baker asking him: “Assuming that (German) reunification takes place, what is preferable for you:
a united Germany outside NATO, fully independent without American troops, or a united Germany preserving ties to NATO but under a
guarantee that NATO jurisdiction and troops will not spread to the east from today’s position.” Gorbachev says that although he did
not commit to either of these at that time, “the latter part of Baker’s phrase became the nucleus of the formula on the basis of
which compromise on Germany’s military-political status was later reached.” (Mikhail Gorbachev, Zhizni i reform, Kniga 2, Moscow,
Novosti, 1995, p. 167).
According to declassified German documents, on 10 February 1990, FRG Foreign Minister Genscher told his Soviet counterpart Eduard
Shevardnadze: “We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is
certain: NATO will not expand to the east” (James M. Goldgeier and Michael McFaul, Power and Purpose: U.S. Policy Toward Russia After
the Cold War, Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press, 2003, pp. 184-5). Videos of Genscher’s and Baker’s 1990 statements to
the press promising NATO would not expand beyond Germany are readily available (“Abmachung 1990: ‘Keine Osterweiterung der NATO’
– Aussenminister Gensher & Baker,” Antikrieg TV, 6 July 2014).
However, weeks later Baker was claiming he already was getting signals that “Central European countries wanted to join NATO,” to
which Genscher responded that they “should not touch this at this point.” The exchange seems to suggest that at least Genscher did
not necessarily see the commitment not to expand NATO as permanent or one encompassing the east outside the GDR (Klussman, Schepp,
and Wiegrefe, “NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?”). Although some, perhaps all of these pledges
came in discussions of a possible NATO expansion to the former GDR’s territory as part of the FRG after reunification, the assumption
at the time was that expansion beyond the GDR was unthinkable. Since Western and Soviet leaders were agreeing that a unified Germany
could join NATO, the promises not to expand to the east had to mean not to do so anywhere beyond the GDR.
In other discussions explicit pledges appear to have been made not to expand NATO beyond the GDR. In his memoir, the late former
Russian Foreign Minister (January 1996 – September 1998), Prime Minister (September 1998 – September 1999), and perestroika-era Politburo
and Presidential Council member Yevgenii Primakov quotes Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry archival documents from various meetings,
showing Baker, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, British Prime Minister John Major, and French President Francois Mitterand all telling
Gorbachev in February and March 1990 that former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe would not become NATO members. In addition,
British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd told Soviet Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh in March that there “were no plans” to
expand NATO beyond united Germany (Primakov, Gody v Bolshoi Politike, pp. 231-33). Finally, in June 1991, NATO Secretary General
Manfred Worner said publicly that granting NATO membership to former Warsaw Pact members “would be a serious obstacle to reaching
mutual understanding with the Soviet Union” (TASS, June 16, 1991).” Thus, again, what seems clear is that there was at least a joint
assumption and informal agreement that NATO would not expand to the east beyond the GDR.
Many Russians, including Primakov, would later harshly criticize Gorbachev with justification (and hindsight’s advantage) for
failing to codify this in a signed agreement (Primakov, Gody v Bolshoi Politike, p. 233). Claiming this was possible, none of them
can produce evidence they proposed this to Gorbachev or his inner circle. These were heady days of rapprochement and hopes for peace
in a ‘common European home’ from Paris to Vladivostok. Some would say they were days of naivete` soon trumped by cynicism. In memoirs
Gorbachev’s closest advisor, Georgii Shakhnazarov, lamented the Warsaw Pact’s dissolution without “achieving the liquidation of NATO.”
He added: “This is just a question of time. One should not regret the end of the military blocs. They are Europe’s yesterday. In
(Europe), security should, of course, be built on a rational, collective basis” (Georgii Shakhnazarov, Tsena Svobody: Reformatsiya
Gorbacheva glazami ego pomoshnika, Moscow, Rissika-Zevs, 1993, p. 128).
With the decision made to expand without Russia, American hubris was communicated to Moscow in no uncertain terms by Assistant
Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, whom President Barack Obama dubbed “one of the giants of American foreign policy” after the
former’s passing in 2010 (Robert D. McFadden, “Strong American Voice in Diplomacy and Crisis,” New York Times,
13 December 2010). At
a Washington conference in 1997, Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Yuli Vorontsov reported how Holbrooke and other U.S. officials repeatedly
and sometimes abruptly rejected queries regarding Russia’s possible entry into NATO: “When the decision was originally floated, I
came to the State Department and had a long talk with the then assistant secretary of state, Mr. Holbrooke. I said, ‘Have you thought
about Russia while you were putting forward this idea of enlargement of NATO?’ And his answer was very honest. He said, ‘No, not
at all; you have nothing to do with that.’ ‘Aha,’ I said, ‘that is very interesting, and what about an invitation for Russia to join
the enlarged NATO?’ He said, ‘Anybody but Russia! No’. That was a nice beginning of our conversations about enlargement of NATO in
the State Department and later on in the corridors of power in Washington. And from all quarters I received that kind of answer:
‘Anyone but Russia. Not you!’” (Yuli Vorontsov, “NATO Enlargement Without Russia: A Mistake on Four Counts,” The NATO-Russian Charter
and the Emerging Relationship, Russia and NATO International Panel, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.,
February 1997.
The Implications of Promise Broken: Maximal Distrust
The increasingly cynical realism of Russian foreign policy as successive rounds of NATO expanded to Russia’s borders as well as
the hyper-cynicism of much of Putin’s foreign policy at present have their roots in Russian disenchantment that resulted from NATO
expansion. The most crucial contingent cause of the present Russo-West and Ukrainian crises was NATO expansion without the inclusion
of Russia. From its outset, post-Soviet Russia was a potential threat to its neighbors and the West, especially if not integrated
into the West. That potential, however, needed to be actualized to become an actual or kinetic threat. Potential’s actualization
was contingent on policies—whether Western or Russian—that isolated and/or alienated Russia from the West. The expansion of Western
institutions, especially NATO – world history’s most powerful military-political bloc – to Russia’s borders without Russia’s inclusion
in the bloc gradually actualized the Russian threat. Moreover, NATO expansion without Russia institutionalized and reinforced the
geopolitical and civilizational divides Mackinderians, Huntingtonians, and neo-Eurasianists on both sides of the Atlantic perceived.
There were several aspects of the 1993-95 discussion, the 1995 decision and 1997 implementation of the first round of NATO expansion
that brought Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into the military alliance which altered the Soviet-American and Russian-American
early post-Cold War honeymoon. First, the decision to expand NATO eastward broke the trust and implied if not explicit promise not
to so expand and thus take advantage of the Warsaw Pact’s dissolution. Second, the U.S. policy made no extra effort to entice Russia
into NATO commensurate with the country’s great power status. To the contrary, policymakers appear to have discouraged, if not outright
rejected Russian overtures. Third, NATO enlargement shifted the correlation of forces in Russian domestic politics from support for,
to opposition against Westernization and democratization. Fourth, NATO expansion undermined Russian national security vis-à-vis NATO.
This not only further alienated the Russian power ministries or siloviki from the West and Russia’s pro-Western leadership, it humiliated
Russia’s proud military and national security establishment. This was all the more so, since NATO’s more forward-leaning configuration
required adjustments to Russian force structure, defense procurement, and military and national security doctrines, many of which
Moscow was in no position to carry out because of the dire economic depression into which the collapse of the USSR had plunged the
country.
The idealistic and naïve Russians of the democratic perestroika generation learned a harsh lesson from the partner they
hoped for in the United States. The lone superpower, increasingly hubristic hegemon, ‘victor in the Cold War’ – the United States
– demonstrated that Russian national security, even domestic stability placed a distant second when it came not just to America’s
maintenance of its position as world leader but also to the unlimited enhancement of U.S. power globally and especially within Russia’s
traditional sphere of influence.
One can discount the promise, implied promise, assumed promise to one’s liking. But more than the spirt of statements and assurances
was broken along with the ‘promise’. The spirit of that minimal trust that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and then
General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev had built up between our two countries’ elites and peoples was gravely undermined. It would be
fatally undermined with each successive round of NATO expansion.
ugghhhh the propaganda channel – thesaker – continues unabated
"Putin single-handedly "resurrected" Russia in an amazingly short time"
just LOL @ single-handedly
" Putin turned Russia into the strongest military power on the planet and he completely reshaped the Russian perception
of themselves and of Russia"
strongest? zvezda channel posting youtube videos doesn't make you the strongest military power
completely reshaped? so much that still all the young Russians want to emigrate
"the country which created the best vaccine on the planet "
the best vaccine? only 4% of Russians got vaccinated, that's 6 million out of 144 millions
so much about Russians trusting Putin, LOL
-- -- -
Andrei Raevsky, do you even re-read what BS you write?!
you aren't fooling anyone but a handful of braindead followers you got there on your blog
in the real world – no one gives a shyt about Putin
the West doesn't hate Putin, they just want to loot Russia or get a cut from the loot of Russia.
Russian oligarchs want to loot Russia for themselves without giving a cut/tribute to Western oligarchs.
Putin is a non-issue, a nobody, he just follows orders of the Russian oligarchs.
But there is a real hate @ Putin – that because he is a fake, only a carefully prepared media
image. And you Andrei Raevsky are part of that propaganda effort. Putin is no savior, Putin
is not working for the betterment of Russians or humanity as a whole. He is just a facade for
Russian oligarchs. And that is what we hate . And the more you and the likes of you push
that fake image of Putin, the more the pushback and hate from us.
So go on – continue.
I was a believer in Putin. Then I saw the light. Now I would have no quarrel putting a bullet in
Putin's head. Analyze this!
Last week. during a visit by the EU's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, Russia's Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov
slapped down the EU's sanctimonious interference in Russia's internal policies.
Back in Brussels, Borrell, who was criticized by some EU hardliners for not directly rebuffing Lavrov's
talk, set down to write
a blog post in which again attacked Russia over the latest Navalny stunt:
I have just returned from a very complicated visit to Moscow, on which I had embarked to
discuss the fraught state of EU-Russia relations. They have been low for a number of years,
and deteriorated even further after recent developments linked to the poisoning, arrest,
and sentencing of Alexei Navalny as well as the related mass arrests of thousands of
demonstrators. The purpose of this mission was to express directly the EU's strong
condemnation of these events and to address, through principled diplomacy, the process of a
rapid worsening of our relationship with Russia, and to help prepare the forthcoming
European Council discussions on EU-Russia relations.
Borrell is delusional. Hardly anyone in Russia believes the nonsensical poisoning story
for which the 'west' could provide exactly zero evidence:
Only 15% in Russia believe the Navalny poisoning was the Govt trying to eliminate an
opponent, and the 15% based this opinion from Telegram and the Internet and were mostly
18-24. The rest think it was staged, a Western false flag, personal or opposition:
https://levada.ru/2020/12/24/...
The whole Navalny poisoning was obviously some secret service operation to bash Russia.
His lavish living in in a 5 bed
room luxurious apartment in Germany after he was released from hospital was paid
by the libertarian oligarch Evgeny Chichvarkin . Chichvarkin, who
lives in London, is probably an MI6 cutout. It is still not known who paid the multimillion
production costs for the
fake 'Putin palace' video. The studio renting for the video was requested by a company in
Los Angeles. Some U.S. involvement is thereby assured.
Poland and other NATO countries are now openly pressing Navalny and other traitors like
him to continue their regime change attempts:
This confrontation was predictable. There is a limit to what Russia can accept. Even after
the russophobic UK departure from the EU, the mood is the same.
Therefore a frank confrontation may either be a wake-up call for Europe that they may lose
totally Russia as a partner or in the contrary bring them more apart.
What the EU fails to realize is that without Russia , it may end up become the puppet of the
USA and the UK
Time will tell
thanks b.... you're correct borrell is delusional and a perfect representative for a
delusional europe.... i am glad lavrov said what he did.. i just wish russia would throw the
shit back at them by making a parallel with the wests treatment of assange... it really
highlights the outrageous-ness of the west at this point...
and someone on the open thread posted about mh17 and trying to access more info contained
in boxes on the rear part of the plain that might lead to a different conclusion... as i see
it mh17, skripal, navalny and etc. etc - are all frame ups to take down russia... it has
reached a level of insanity and borrell is the perfect delusional character to represent it
all here..
throw the shit back at them russia... call the west out on their endless bullshit... the
time for diplomacy is long gone and this appears to be the conclusion that russia is indeed
coming to, however slowly....
Borrell - "The strategic choices we make now will determine international power dynamics in
the 21st century, and notably whether we will advance towards more cooperative or more
polarised models, based on closed or on freer societies."
He answers his own question - the EU (and "partners") will advance towards a more
polarized international model, based on their own self-serving definitions of "closed" or
"freer" societies. This self-generated dichotomy will be used to mask the true nature of this
perceived crossroad: "they" can live with us, but "we" can't live with them.
In a video posted earlier today, 12/02/2021 Alexander Mercuoris of The Duran analysed the
reaction of Germany's politicians to Lavrov's comments.
Basically even Heiko Maas the anti-Russian foreign minister shit his pants at the though of
Russia abandoning Europe and therefore jeapordizing Germany a significant percentage of it's
energy supply.
When all is said and done, the E.U. will suffer far worse than Russia if Moscow abandons
Europe.
The technocrats know this. However the level of maturity required to overcome their hubris is
patently lacking and to re-orientate themselves idealogically will be viery difficult as can
be seen by the reaction of 70 mental retards who pose as M.E.P.s in a letter they signed
calling for Borrell's resignation and a tougher stance on Russia.
Until a few years ago, Russia did not have an alternative for purchases of many items
other than from the West. It now has China to supply most needs. When China finally solves
the problems caused by the US sanctions to semiconductor factories (it will take roughly a
decade to develop its own photolithography and design, the most critical tools of advanced
semiconductor processing), China will be able to provide everything that Russia needs except
for warm climate fruits and vegetables (maybe Turkey?). This new paradigm seems to be behind
Russia's new assertiveness. Europe should make peace with Russia before it fully tilts
towards the East.
In 1990 at the what I then thought end of Cold War there seemed an opening to the
coalescing of a northern hemisphere zone of peace - but that vision has come to nothing. What
an idiot I was! How could I ever have thought that the best of the inheritance of Western
civilization would lead in the West. The plowing, plundering, grasping, murdering and
scheming for profit psychos in the West stabbed that vision in the heart. I am sure now
another opening will not come in my lifetime - the West will make sure of that.
If I was younger I would leave the US but now can only hunker down and stay out of the way
of the juggernaut of rampaging psychos lurching from one failure to another. The only relief
from the deepest moments of despair is looking to the East and others that are building and
working together to build a new world. Obviously Russia and China, along with Iran, Cuba,
Venezuela, Syria and others. It is a strange world for me turned upside down when I even
include North Korean resistance to the US Empire of Mendacity as contributing to the building
of that new world.
the Reality is NOT quite right the way b has present it. EU together with US, Canada CAN
and WILL hurt Russia deeply if they slap severe economic sanctions on Russia's energy sector.
And Russia knows that and EU knows that Russia knows it.
The West's game is very simple: cut Russia from the Western world, by denying it access to
any type of new tech, economic loans and any type of ties with the West. (this worked quite
well with the Soviet Union, so it WILL work again) And this WILL hurt Russia deeply
economically, no question about it. And before you tell me about China and the supposed
Russia-China's ties, let me inform you that the ties are merely economic and both still don't
trust each other. The Russians are well aware of CHina's claims over Siberia. They don't
really work together, most of those ties are imaginary and dont really exist.
Putin has made several mistakes, and he is too dependent on the Rich Russian millionaires.
The threat of sanctions made him freeze when the West went after Ukraine and Putin didn't act
to save it. Russia will cry bloody tears over this in the very near future. This is only the
overture of things to come. There will be another fake false flag even in the Azov sea after
which USA will demand Russia be boycotted. Ys that will hurt EU also, but the Eu are
masochists who love getting their asses fucked by US.
Russia better get prepared and get their supply ass grease ready, they will be getting
serious ass fucking very very soon. And they wont be able to do anything about it. Good
going, Putin!
I commiserate as we're in the same boat. I watch like a hawk because forewarned is
forearmed!
/////
Published at the right moment given events is this
Strategic-Culture Editorial : "NATO's Road To Perdition With Ukraine." It omits
the Borrell incident to focus on the recent meeting between NATO secretary general Jens
Stoltenberg hosted Ukrainian prime minister Denys Shymhal at the organization's headquarters
in Brussels:
"At a joint press conference, both men were upbeat about Ukraine joining NATO. Stoltenberg
admitted that the former Soviet Republic has been eyed for membership of the alliance since
2008, a timescale which puts more recent conflict over the past nearly seven years in
perspective. He also confirmed that NATO forces have been building up their presence in the
Black Sea in coordination with Ukrainian counterparts. In recent weeks, three US warships
have been training with Ukrainian naval vessels in order to counter what Stoltenberg says is
'Russian aggression'."
So, there's much more in the stew than it appears:
"It is interesting to speculate why Stoltenberg – a former Norwegian premier and
nominal civilian head of NATO – this week appeared to give new impetus to Ukraine's
ambitions. Could it be related to the change of administration in the United States? Senior
members of the Biden administration have publicly stated during Senate hearings a willingness
to increase military support for the Kiev government in its conflict with pro-Russian
separatists in Eastern Ukraine. American and European envoys at the UN Security Council
this week reiterated strident accusations against Russia claiming that Moscow was responsible
for prolonging the conflict in Ukraine . Russia's envoy Vassily Nebenzia countered that
it was the Kiev regime and its Western allies who have not implemented the previously agreed
Minsk peace accord signed in 2015." [My Emphasis]
Bald-faced lies in public forums that began with Clinton/Gore have steadily escalated and
clearly aren't a product of any one administration but a continuity of the War Party's
attempt at Full Spectrum Domination that keeps slipping further away from any possibility of
occurring, thus its desperation. Yesterday, I provided this link to The Saker's latest
analysis and called it a Must Read. Within he links to several reports from Russian media
and military sources that those watching closely need to read. Yesterday, Putin met with his Security
Council ostensibly about arms control but I think the conversation went well beyond that,
although I have no confirmation.
The Solovyov-Lavrov transcript isn't complete yet, but what's there is incredible! As
Lavrov said, "Well, this is some kind of a kingdom of crooked mirrors." If what Lavrov said
of Borrell's position, we should have some pity for him being put into such an impossible
position--but then, he's well paid to do his duty.
Patrick Armstrong wrote yesterday about the consequences of the Navalny brothers' scam in
2012 against Yves Rocher:
NAVALNIY. The story continues. The theory that he's being fitted up for a treason charge
was given a boost when Zakharova said he should be called an "agent of influence" rather than
a politician. His suspended sentence for fraud was lifted and he's off to prison. Read Yves
Rocher's statement; sounds to me as if the company believes he did swindle them. The fact
that there's now a campaign against the company suggests my deduction is correct. https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2021/02/11/russian-federation-sitrep-11-february-2021/
That contains a couple of links giving more details of the case.
Armstrong also links to this tweet by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a video
showing many examples of police brutality in the West and also violence by protesters against
police in Russian (the opposite of what is shown in Western media). https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1356674233464729609
Several days ago on the 10th, I posted
this link and commented about what I deemed the notable words spoken by Lavrov on
Diplomats' Day. IMO, it's a martial pep-talk given his peroration followed by this
paragraph:
"Russia's attempts to become an independent state, to uphold its right to an independent
foreign policy and to protect international law are coming against increasingly harsh
resistance of our Western colleagues, who would like to teach 'obedience' to us. They would
like us to accept the highly questionable interpretation of common human values, an
interpretation that contradicts Russia's cultural and civilisational traditions. They would
like Russia to become a 'convenient' territory for promoting their own security, economic,
social and political interests. We can see that these are becoming ever more aggressive with
every passing day. We must actively apply our efforts, knowledge and experience, based on the
wisdom of our predecessors, to consistently promote the foreign policy course formulated by
President Vladimir Putin."
How else do you prepare your diplomatic corp for war?
If you've followed Lavrov closely for many months as I have, the change in his demeanor is
quite marked; yet as Paco notes, he still maintains his professionalism. Lavrov's perplexity
about how consensus is supposed to function was well put--we know several nations disagree
with the policy yet go along with it--WHY?--the united front undercuts your own interests. In
Putin's latest conversation with his Energy Minister, there was no mention of Nord Stream 2's
situation. Given all the sanctions and lack of pushback by the EU nations most dependent on
it, IMO Russia is willing to sacrifice it as it didn't bear all the costs and has plenty of
potential customers for its hydrocarbons. So, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Russia
stopped short of finishing, said it would fulfill its existing contracts, but no more would
be negotiated until conditions drastically change. Hardball is just that--Hardball.
Levada is
considered a [pro-]Western sociological service (there are links with Soros) in Russia
and the results of its polls, let's say, cause a certain skepticism. 15% of those who believe
in "poisoning"... I would say figures of 5-8 (maximum 10) percent look much more realistic.
It is still not known who paid the multimillion production costs for the fake 'Putin
palace' video.
Well, I would look for sources in names like
Khodorkovsky or/and Browder .
Both scammers are longtime haters of Russia.
The Kremlin later said that some media misrepresented Lavrov's remarks but essentially
confirmed his stand
According to Russian legislation, the country's foreign policy is determined directly by the
president. The Foreign Ministry is essentially just a repeater, although of course it
introduces its own peculiarities. Therefore, there is no doubt that Lavrov's words were
coordinated with (and approved by) Putin. Peskov, as usual, in his own manner, tried to
somewhat "smooth out"/"embellish" Lavrov's directness and rigidity, which, however, does not
negate the essence of the statements themselves.
Today Navalny was back in court for publicly insulting a World War II veteran. The EU will
certainly make remarks about that. But only a few days ago police in Scotland arrested
someone because he typed a mean tweet about a British veteran of that war.
Here I can only support the British, who massively stood up for the offended veteran Sir
Thomas Moore.
Citizens wrote mass appeals, statements to the police demanding to bring to justice the
degenerate who insulted the memory of the war hero.
Unfortunately, Russian society often lacks such civic initiative. Yes, the authorities
will do their job, and a piece of shit named Navalny, who slandered the war veteran, will be
punished. But besides the actions of the authorities, it would be nice to see also the
"demand of the people", you know.
And I have been following you, following Lavrov.....
The Nordstream II is a question mark. It is being finished by the Russians, with their own
ships. The Germans have also realised that their own interests are tied up there. The
"Threatening situation" (from the west) does not come from either one.
My conclusion is that EU policy is being dictated from outside , the secondary
question is "by whom". Unfortunately I suspect that the main driving force is the same one
that "enabled" Biden, Enabled the ousting of socialist candidates in many countries. (Corbyn,
and in S. America generally), and generally assume they are the top of the top.
Is this force based on "nationality" or on "interests", call them Religious nuts, Extreme
militarists OR Financial Fascists? Alternatively are they a mixture of all three***.
One explanation for Lavrov's coldness is that IF the EU was an independent representative
body (which it isn't) then certain actions to improve the lot of the populace would have been
taken. That they are not means that they lack the ability to deviate from what they have been
ordered. By way of an explanation, the Media will lie, because they cannot do otherwise
having been "bought" in some way. Lavrov has certainly changed. Because he probably knows
what is "supposed" to happen, and the EU miasma do not understand that they too will be in
the forefront of any battleground. (Since that includes me, I am not too happy about the
situation either).
Aside; *** They could be mixture of all three tendencies. ie. 9/11 had operatives from the
Saudis, Israel, and the Pentagon, with three different motivations. Religious (Saudis),
Suprematist (Israel) and monetary (Pentagon and it's "lost" trillions, and profitability by
insiders).
As the head of the Soviet intelligence service, Leonid Shebarshin, an extremely
well-informed man, once said: "The west wants only one thing from Russia -- that it does
not exist".
"One explanation for Lavrov's coldness is that IF the EU was an independent representative
body (which it isn't) then certain actions to improve the lot of the populace would have
been taken ." [My Emphasis]
Now what current ideology supports such a policy--that the lot of the masses
isn't supposed to be improved; rather, they are to have their wealth wrung out,
then be tossed aside and used as manure. Hint: It was famously announced as Trickle-down
Economics, which was lambasted as Voodoo Economics.
If you read Hudson, then you know where the power center lies within the Outlaw US Empire
and its network of vassals--The privately held Central Banks and those that control them and
many other key corporations thanks to interlocking boards of directors--the same basic cabal
that failed to assassinate FDR and oust him via a coup but succeeded with JFK, RFK, MLK, and
so many others: millions when adding in their terrorists and their Death Squads.
To rid Europe of its Central Bank, the EU would need to be disbanded. But to gain complete
sovereignty, NATO would need to die also. Currently, Europe is essentially occupied by a
force every bit as immoral as the Nazis. It's not by accident that Lavrov, Putin and others
invoke the Great Patriotic War and the events that led to it as recurring.
I would not be surprised to see Russia actually perform the deeds it's accused of, like
actually invade and subdue Ukraine. It it did so, realistically what would change? Nuland
famously gave the answer Russia would now echo--Fuck the EU. As with the Republic's Trade
Federation secretly aligning with the Sith, the EU will come to regret playing dummy to the
Outlaw US Empire as it gets barred from gaining any benefits from being in the Eurasian Bloc
and China's BRI Combo.
I don't really follow the Navalny situation anymore because as soon as I see Russia
mentioned in any Western media I assume it's an "intelligence community" psyop or just plain
old propaganda. But something piqued my curiosity regarding this alleged mansion of
Putin's.
Strategic culture provided two links to YouTube videos in their articles, one of which to
my knowledge isn't subtitled so I don't know what was being said in Russian. In this video a
group of guys made the trip to the site of this mansion compound and showed the place in
disrepair, looking like exterior had aged quite a bit.
The other is to Navalny's own video which alleges to explain that the reason for the
current state of the project is that the original design/construction were faulty and that a
serious mold problem, as well as leaking roofs, had caused them to strip out the entire
interior ostensibly to rebuild from scratch (and allegedly tossing "billions" of rubles worth
of marble and other fancy construction materials). He also says that the original photos and
video which show the place in pristine condition, were from 6 years ago before the
teardown.
Leaving aside the obvious fake photos (like the one in Moscow times which was a
photoshopped Putin swimming in his new mansion, lol) and the situation in general (i.e.,
whether Putin has anything to do with this structure at all), can anyone square this circle
for me? Is it disproven that the place was indeed built a while back and later stripped down
due to the leaking roofs and mold? If so is there a source in the English language that
explains the situation?
There is a strong whiff of desperation of the EuroCrapsters and their US masters to grab
what Russia has (resources) and thus delay own economic collapse. All these crapsters are
freezing their asses off right now whilst dreaming of profits from pillaged Russian energy.
The most precarious is the Western pension system, which with ZIRP and NIRP interest rates
has stopped existing. There is no source of funding in this World that could feed that hungry
monster with ageing population. The Western printing presses are overheating and this is only
a delaying solution for the deeply debalanced system. Absolutely the only way out for the
West is to bring down Russian government and pillage. If Russia did not have nuclear weapons
this would have happened a while ago. The Russians understand this perfectly.
Will the sick West run into a desperate confrontation against a bee with a big sting? It
must be unusually frustrating for the AngloAmerican crapsters not to be able to just take
what they want and need from the World as they have been doing over the past couple if
centuries. They have the big sting but their mark has an even bigger (hypersonic) sting. What
a profound change in world affairs - pillaging from now on to come at the huge cost. And
Putin appears prepared to prevent pillaging of not only Russia.
The calculation is fairly clear - either they will feed, cloth and keep warm the Western
elderly and others using Russian resources or there will be no pensioners after a nuclear
Holocaust. Either way problem solved.
would like to know, in concrete terms, what is the benefit from constant denigration and
provocation of Russia, and who benefits, in precisely what ways. I do know, however, who does
not benefit. The vast majority of Europeans, the Russians and generally the majority of
humanity.
-Pushing Russia around and away is counter productive for the EU and Europe as whole. It is a
big, peaceful, neighbouring country willing to cooperate on the basis of mutual respect and
interest. Russia has put foreward many constructive proposals, all of which have been
rejected
- There is no rational basis for the long-lasting and escalating pressure on Russia. If that
is correct, the goals and actions of the West, and the the EU in particular, are irrational
from the perspective of the real life interests of the majority of European citizens and
welfare and wellbeing of the majority of people in the world.
- I hope that Russia does not abandon its orientation towards Europe, because it is a
European state. It should be part of European integration projects, albeit not on the present
model of the EU. That does not clash, but accords, with its Asian relations and projects.
- The EU should radically change its policies towards Russia, and welcome it as an important
partner in all fields.
- The qeustion is - who is going to stop the race into the abys that the European leaders are
accelarating? I don't see anyone or anything on the European scene considering, capable of
and willing to put an end to this utter madness. I do see who is paying the price and who
will pay even more dearly in the future. The majority of European citizens.Deeply depressing
and very scary.
The Bulletin article doesn't really delve into the issues around the US' new low-yield
'tactical' nukes, it concentrates on a new big 'strategic' ICBM system, the Ground Based
Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). It seems to be basically an attempt to resurrect the capabilities
of the Reagan era MX 'Peacekeeper' that was scrapped under the START treaties as it was
optimised to carry a large number of warheads and the US preferred to keep a larger number of
Minuteman III missiles with single warheads.
Although it probably won't be quite as large as the MX, it will be better suited than the
Minuteman for carrying multiple hypersonic glide vehicles like the Russian 'Avangard' system.
The Russians have an initial operating capability on their SS-19/UR-100N ICBM (similar in
payload to the Minuteman) but will soon deploy their much larger RS-28 Sarmat which will
allow multiple hypersonic gliders to be carried.
The article describes a typically corrupt US procurement process, with the big three arms
companies (Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman) fighting it out for the mountain of
$. Northrop Grumman managed to win out by buying up the only manufacturer of the large solid
rocket motors that the contract required the contractors to use. Solid rocket motors were one
of the only aspects of space technologies where the US was unequivocally in the lead, with 4
or 5 companies producing them. By the time of the GBSD contract only one company remained
after the orgy of mergers and buyouts, Orbital ATK. ATK was the successor to Thiokol Corp,
whose product doomed the crew of the Space Shuttle Challenger (being basically a big 'light
it and stand the f*** back' firework solid motors are not a great option for crewed
spaceflight, but well suited to ICBMs).
By buying up ATK, Northrop Grumman threatened to massively cut into the profits of any
other company bidding, ensuring a clear run to the contract for itself. Many analysts had
suspected that Boeing would be given the GBSD contract to compensate for their losses on the
737Max, but Northrop's maneuvers and Boeing's terrible recent track record in space made that
impossible. Boeings SLS moon rocket failed its crucial static-fire test in Jan 2021 and is 5
years behind schedule despite it being basically a Space Shuttle tank with Shuttle engines
bolted to the bottom (early 70s tech). Its Starliner Space Station ferry also failed its
uncrewed flight test last year due to a plethora of software errors, one of which was
discovered with minutes to spare and would have killed a crew by crashing the service module
into the crew module moments after the modules seperated for reentry into the atmosphere.
With all that in mind I don't think the Russians are too troubled by the US's prowess in
space or financial technology. Whatever Frankenstein's Rocket emerges from the GBSD program
will be most unlikely to rival the RS-28 (known to NATO as 'Son of Satan'), and by that time
the 'Grandson of Satan' will probably be flying.
The problem with armchair strategists is of course they don't know all the facts, those at
hand to the actual players. Some leaks into the real world but far too much is hidden.
All we know is that Russia appears to have stopped its subservient position and have
started with the EU, not the US. Is that because they believe they are now finally powerful
enough for a military conflict? Or perhaps as they believe one is coming anyway? Or are there
other hidden factors in play?
One thing of interest is that it hasn't taken long for the NATO/Russian situation to
escalate quickly since Trumps removal, anyone still doubt he was removed? Also of note the US
general now stating nuclear war is possible, more fear to add or just introducing the idea to
us as something that may "have" to be done to save the world for democracy?
How much does one believe in coincidence? Karmically there is no such thing. Many big
issues going on in the world now from covid with its fascist responses to Big Resets, massive
world debt, and now increasing military tension with Russia and perhaps China as well soon.
All interlinked?
Putin created a document about lessons from WW2. Even if you disagree with him or just
hate him, ask yourself if Trump, Biden, Pelosi or any other elderly US leaders could reason
at this level or offer this depth of thought. That's my take away...
The problem with Navalny is not that he is a 'traitor' to Russia but that he is an agent
of the Empire, on the payrolls of the Five Eyes security complex. Which makes him a traitor
to humanity.
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a
threat to the neoliberal international order. Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the
neoliberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War
era.
After the Cold War, neoliberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition
– suggesting that neoliberal democracy should be at the center of security strategies.
However, by linking neoliberal norms to US leadership, neoliberalism became both a
constitutional principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of neoliberal values – without mentioning that its
second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative and authoritarian than Russia – and
Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of
democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility to revert to its original mission as a military
bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until
the West supported the coup in Ukraine. Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul
inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed to his
ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its
borders, as it would give hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological
lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails to explain why Russia does not
mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good
relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that
endow them with the right to defend other peoples. The French National Convention declared in
1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to recover their
liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed,
if necessary, to the fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American neoliberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the
world with "democracy promotion" and "humanitarian interventionism" when it
conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that democracy is
advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack
if Russia interferes in the domestic affairs of US. The neoliberal international system is one
of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are
merely motivated by the objective of liberating Russians from their government, which is why he
advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between Putin and the
Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the
Cold War – the US supposedly does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only
altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their leaders such as Slobodan
Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other neoliberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance,"
which does not make much sense after the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011.
However, under the auspices of neoliberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as it defends
the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the
neoliberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US,
before outlining his strategies for interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul
blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations" that
are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He
goes on to explain that the US government must counter this by establishing new
"non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils of their
government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom
tend to promise perpetual peace. Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of
human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed defender of the
ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world
and utopia can be bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power
politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security
strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides
states into good and evil, into peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by
the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist, believing he has
broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Ghanima223 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:36 AM
In short, the tables have turned since the end of the Cold War. It is no longer communist
ideologues that try to export revolution and chaos while the western world would promote
stability and free markets. Now it's western ideologues that are trying to export revolutions
and chaos while clamping down on free markets with Russia, as ironically as it sounds, being
a force for stability and a strong proponent for the free exchange of goods and services
around the world. The west will lose just as the USSR has lost.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:01 AM
The Dollar is the only fake reason that still keeps US afloat. The moment that goes, it loss
will be a lot worse then of USSR.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 12:58 AM
That happened not exactly after the end of the cold war. It was about even for a decade after
that. The real u-turn happened after the 9/11 false flag disaster.
Amvet 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:00 AM
Foreign dangers are necessary to keep the attention of the American people away from the 20
ton elephant in the room--the fact that 9/11 was not a foreign attack. Should any of the main
stream media suddenly turn honest and report this in detail, things will get interesting.
King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:11 AM
I wouldn't worry too much. At the same time Biden will be purging the US military of any men
of capability and replacing them trans and political appointments. The traditional areas
where the military recruited it's grunts are falling as they are waking up to the hostility
of the state to their culture and way of life. The US military will end up a rump of queerss,
off work due to stress or perceived persecution and fat doughballs sat in warehouses
performing drone strikes on goats.
Fjack1415 King_Penda 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:20 PM
Yes, you point to a paradox. While the globalists are using the US as their military arm for
global domination, they are at the same time destroying the country that supports that
military. Perhaps the US military will be maintained by dint of its being the only employer
for millions of unemployed young men in the American heartland, doughballs or not.
Ghanima223 King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:39 AM
Ideologues will always be more concerned with having political reliable military leadership
as opposed to actually qualified leaders. It took the Russians 2 decades to purge their own
military of this filth of incompetent 'yes' men within their military.
UKCitizen 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:09 AM
'The Liberal International Order' - yes, that seems a fair description. Led by what might be
termed 'liberal fundamentalists'.
far_cough 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 07:01 AM
the military industrial complex and the various deep state agencies along with the major
corporations need russia as an adversary so that they can milk the american people and the
people of the western world of their money, rights, freedoms, etc etc...
roby007 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:54 AM
I'm sure Biden will pursue "peaceful, productive coexistence" just as his friend Obama did,
with drones and bombs.
Paul Citro 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:16 AM
I hope that Russian leaders fully realize that they are dealing with a country that is the
equivalent of psychotic.
Fjack1415 Paul Citro 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:26 PM
True, the ruling party and MSM mouthpieces and their readers and followers are now truly
INSANE. Beyond redemption. Staggering in the depth and power of the subversion of so many
people, including many with high IQs (like my ex girlfriend and housemate in the US).
Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:57 AM
US security strategy is committed to global dominance
Absolutely. Biden has filled up his admin with "progressive realists," which
when it comes to foreign policy, is just a euphuism for neocons and their lust for world
empire. So expect an unleashing of forces in the coming two years that will finally humble
America's war machine.
tyke2939 Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 01:07 PM
They are desperate for a war with someone but it must be someone they can beat convincingly.
It certainly will not be Russia or China and I suspect Iran will be a huge battle even with
Israel s backing. More than likely they will invade some country like Venezuela as Syria has
Russia covering its back. What a dilemma who to fight.
9/11 Truther Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
The "American war machine" has been humbled from Saigon, Vietnam 1975 to Kabul, Afghanistan.
Salmigoni 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:25 AM
They are not really liberals. They are blood thirsty parasitic neoconservative fascist war
mongers working for the Pentagon contractors. General Eisenhower warned us about these evil
people. A lot of Americans still do not get it.
@annamaria
or wish it well – and everyone knows that.
He must know this. He must also know that his electoral prospects are nil – even if
he was allowed to compete and given access. Short of a revolution he is done, and
revolution is not coming, too soon. That is not a good place to be. He is in theory protected
by his sponsors, but that may not amount to much if things get hot. At best he would get
exchanged. Or he can quietly slip away after a few years if he is lucky.
Mulatto did his job, now mulatto can go. A single-use politician who is endlessly
promoted, celebrated, and then discarded and forgotten, only to be listed on a sad list of
names to demonise the enemy. That enemy is his own country, is that really heroism?
He is a nationalist like the Maiden. Maiden in power promoted with violence anti-Russian
hysteria. This action created a civil war since a large part of Ukraine are Russian
speakers.
Navalny, if in power, would do something similar as in Ukraine. Act as a Nationalist of
only the Russians in the Russian Federation. Get all the other peoples of the Russian
Federation to break away or stir up a civil war.
Within a few years, put in place Zion/USA puppets like Poroshenko and Zelensky. Look at
the recent Ukrainegate Impeachment trial, almost everyone supporting Ukrainegate trial was
Jewish, even the Ukrainians in this sham trial. .
This is not about bringing down Putin but about dismembering Russia and ending its
sovereignty
The easiest proxy here is the 1990s campaign against Milosevic (the campaign) as a tool to
dismember Yugoslavia
Russia is too rich, too week and is refusing to surrender, hence it will be divided
between and
Absorbed on one side by China and on the other side/s by USA and EUSA
The initial planning for disintegration of Russia was drafted in the NSC directive in
1948
West of Russia to Urals will be absorbed by EU/(Germany)
East of Russia to Yenisei will be controlled by US/(Japan)
China will take over hte greatest price – everything between Urals and Yenisei
Putin with his United Russia/One Russia Party is a major obstacle to the master plan
and
will therefore
be eliminated
whether one likes it or not
@annamaria
from his sponsors are of little use in his current situation.
I find the Western coverage of this affair absurdly propagandistic. A few things are never
mentioned:
– what was Navalny convicted off – fraud
– that he is not by any stretch of imagination the "opposition" leader – his
party has not reached even 5% required to be represented in the parliament
There is also an omission of why Russia claims "interference" – because US Embassy
published the routes for the demos. And many of the demonstrators are paid one way on
another by the West – if the situation was reversed, liberals would call for a war
(as they basically did with Trump's allegations).
What a lie. The bombs being dropped from the U.S. made jets the Saudi pilots fly over Yemen
killing civilians leaves blood all over his hands not to mention shaking the hand of the
Saudi that murdered a journalist before selling him weapons to kill Yemen's civilians.
Waryaa Moxamad 48 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 05:36 PM
1) False flag chemical attack on Syria. 2) killing Soleimani in a sovereign country he was
invited to 3) Guaido 4) Bolivia. 5) continuing the wars predecessors started.
Who is being fooled that U.S. presidency has any say in America's imperialism?
Who really pushed for General Soleimani to be killed and has the most personal and intense
vendetta against Soleimani? Mike Pompeo. Trump did not give the Pentagon and CIA all the wars
they wanted, especially in Syria. Now the Pentagon and the CIA have their puppet, Corrupt
Biden, who will do what they command him to do. I would expect in one year to see another
massive war. Where? Syria. The US mothers will cry when their sons come home in coffins. The
Hez in Lebanon will not back down, and they will enter Syria again. Trump did not want young
American boys coming back in coffins!!!!!!!
>>Today, the Trump administration filed an appeal against the UK decision not to
extradite Assange. I must imagine that means that Trump has no intention of pardoning
Assange.
Trump was a desperate "Murica must have the biggest dick" imperialist massively triggered
by the US decline and trying to save the US Empire. Like a rabid dog that is wounded, he
attacked anything that moves, including those who helped him get into power.
Anyone who thought that he will help the likes of Russia or Assange does not understand
the psychology of elite US WASPs.
These people thought that they and the US should rule the world and that they are the
cream of the cream. Anything denying them that would lead to crazed reactions, hysteria,
rabid animalistic behavior, and snarling and gnashing of teeth at anything that moves.
Simply put, their decline caused them to go rabid. A rabid dog attacks anything that
moves, whether friendly or not. Unfortunately for the likes of Russia and Assange.
Trump obviously wants better diplomatic relations with Russia. He is reluctant to
counter its military might. He is doing his best to make it richer. Just consider the
headlines below. With all those good things Trump did for Putin, intense suspicions of
Russian influence over him is surely justified.
There followed 34 headlines and links to stories about Trump actions, from closing Russian
consulates to U.S. attacks on Russian troops, that were hostile to Russia.
In fact no other U.S. administration since the cold war has been more aggressive towards
Russia than Trump's.
But some U.S. media continue to claim that Trump's behavior towards Russia has not been
hostile at all. Consider this line
in Politico about anti-Russian hawks in the incoming Biden administration:
Nuland and Sherman, who entered academia and the think tank world after leaving the Obama
administration, have been outspoken critics of President Donald Trump's foreign policy --
particularly his appeasement of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Where please has Trump 'appeased' Vladimir Putin?
Here are a number of headlines which appeared in U.S. media since we published our first
list two years ago. Which of the described actions were designed to 'appease' Putin or
Russia?
When one adds up all those actions one can only find that Trump cares more about Russia,
than about the U.S. and its NATO allies. Only with Trump being under Putin's influence,
knowingly or unwittingly, could he end up doing Russia so many favors.
Why, you certainly could view most (if not all) of those actions as favors.
People feel attacked, unite, rally around the flag. Internal problems are blamed on the
external enemy. The sanctions, the sort the West likes to impose, help develop domestic
industries. Etc. Yeah, favors.
Point on! Trump was never 'the Russians' bitch'. He was the whore of the Russian
émigré mafia that had relocated to the US in south Queens in New York City. A
major difference!
Well, the logic is to destroy or ad least severely weaken Russia. Yet damn Russia is
getting stronger and stronger, hence what ever happened under Trump's watch must have been a
favor to Russia.
Competent government would look itself in the mirror and admit it is their own fault and
stupidity, but that ship sailed long time ago for US.
"If we get caught they will just replace us with persons of the same cloth. So it does not
matter what you do, America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it
off piece by piece until there is nothing left but the world's biggest welfare state that we
will create and control. Why? Because it is the will of God and America is big enough to take
the hit so we can do it again and again and again. This is what we do to countries that we
hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves."
Herdee 9 minutes ago remove link
This is the philosophy that both the CIA and Pompeo used on Trump in order to help destroy
him. It actually sounds like something very similar or left over from the Nazi German era
from WW2:
In an interview published by Moscow news agency Interfax on Tuesday, Deputy Justice Minister
Mikhail Galperin said that litigation over the collapsed Yukos oil empire and fallout from
Russia's 2014 reabsorption of Crimea means that "a tough year" is on the cards.
The long-running dispute over Yukos, once among Russia's leading energy firms and one of the
most valuable companies in the world, has been raging for years. However, it now appears to be
coming to a head as the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, which claims it has jurisdiction in
the case, prepares to hear an appeal from Russia's lawyers. A legal settlement of more than $50
billion, thought to be the largest in history, hangs in the balance.
"Of course, we're not sitting idly, waiting for the Supreme Court's decision," said
Galperin. "Every day, we're defending our national interests in this case in different ways.
Legal battles related to the Yukos case are taking place not only in the Netherlands, but in
other jurisdictions as well."
Those who lost money in the collapse of the Yukos empire insist that the arrest of its CEO
on fraud charges and a colossal bill in back-taxes amounted to state appropriation.
Russian authorities argue that previous rulings in foreign courts on the side of the
claimants failed to take into account Russia's anti-corruption laws, and claim that the
investors weren't "bona fide." Moscow also insists that only Russia's courts have
jurisdiction, as the Energy Charter Treaty under which the case is being brought was signed but
never ratified.
Galperin added that the country's "main legal argument is that Russia never agreed for
the case to be heard by an international court of arbitration, which means that the judges had
no mandate to consider the lawsuit Yukos ex-shareholders filed against
Russia."
Last week, one of Russia's highest judicial authorities ruled that the country should
disregard any judgement coming from overseas tribunals. They state that, while the government
of the day took steps to join the Energy Charter Treaty in 1994, they did not have the
authority to make national laws subject to international agreements, or to "challenge the
competence" of Russian courts. Therefore, the jurists conclude, adhering to the Dutch
court's demands would be "unconstitutional."
However, if the verdict goes in favor of Yukos' former shareholders, refusing to pay the
bill could have substantial repercussions for Russia, with the claimants already calling for
the confiscation of the country's assets overseas as collateral.
Galperin, however, is confident that Russia could avoid cash and property falling into the
hands of the oligarchs who have brought the case. "Since 2014," he said, "they have
made multiple unscrupulous attempts to seize not only state property, but also assets that
belong to Russian companies in Western Europe. We have successfully repelled all these
assaults."
"While we can't rule out that in 2021 YUKOS ex-shareholders will continue their legal
battle in a number of countries, I can tell you without unnecessary bravado that we are fully
prepared to fight off any attempts to seize our property in any country of the world."
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands is expected to hear the case in February next year,
while simultaneous battles have also been fought in US and British courts. The row comes at a
time when tensions between Russia and the West are growing, with Moscow's diplomats arguing
that verdicts against the country have been "politically motivated." In December,
Justice Minister Konstantin Chuychenko told journalists that the case is part of a "legal
war that has been declared on Russia."
As well as the Yukos case potentially reaching a dramatic climax, Galperin expects that his
ministry will have their hands full next year with at least two other international disputes.
As early as January, the European Court of Human Rights is expected to announce a decision on a
legal fight between Moscow and Kiev over disputed Crimea. There is a further $8 billion claim
from a Ukrainian energy firm that insists it lost its assets when the peninsula was reabsorbed
into Russia. The same court will also rule on a case brought by Georgia over events in South
Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008.
It sure looks like Biden will take over the White House one way or another, and while Trump
and his supporters might still try a few things, the political correlation of forces inside the
US ruling classes is clearly against Trump. As for the "deplorables" – they have been
neutralized by stealing the election. Which means that Russia will soon face the most rabidly
russophobic gang of messianic Neocons in history. So what can the world expect next?
The Dems are not meaningfully different from the Republicans. True, the Dems blame Russia
for everything, while the Republicans blame China. Not much of a difference here: it is all
about hate and scapegoating. And both of these factions of the oligarchic Uniparty like to
blame Iran for, well, being located in the "wrong" part of the world, the Middle-East, which
all US politicians (and not to mention their Israeli masters) want to control. As for the
Israel Lobby, it has been trying to trigger a US attack on Iran for many decades. Recent US
moves of key personnel and bombers might indicate that discussions of an attack on Iran are
still very much taking place.
I don't believe that these fundamental directions in US foreign policy will change much.
Why?
Primarily because the AngloZionist Empire and even the US as we knew them are basically
dead, which means that irrespective of who is in control of the US, the objective
means/capabilities of the Empire and the US will remain the same . In other words, when
Biden promises to show Russia how tough and mighty he will be, he will not have any more
capabilities to threaten Russia with than Trump had.
So the first thing we can expect is simply "more of the same".
Now, in the Empire of
Illusions which the United States has become, appearances matter much more than
facts . US politicians have two quasi-reflexive reactions to any problem: use violence or
throw money at it. Of course, using violence against Russia (or China and Iran) would be
extremely dangerous. So throwing money at a problem is the way chosen by the US political
elites (see here for the, rather
boring, details).
A lot of that money will also be spent on ideological nonsense like supporting trans-gender
rights in Africa, woke-awareness in the Baltic, "critical race theory" in Japan (good luck with
that!), "Holocaust studies" in Poland and the like.
What will happen next is that this money will be spread amongst a pretty large US and EU
bureaucracy (and its subcontractors) to all sorts of political PR actions aimed at presenting
modern Russia as "Putin's Mordor" whose "Nazguls" (scary GRU and/or SVR and/or FSB agents) run
around the planet looking for more targets to infect with the totally ineffective, but still
scary, "Novichok". In the past, much of that money was spent inside Russia by all sorts of
CIA-run NGOs and much of it was also spent on various propaganda efforts outside Russia. Again,
this will not change, if anything, expect even more money poured into what are in reality
strategic PSYOP operations.
The sad truth is that US politicians know very little about Russia, a country which they
hate and fear, but not a country they even begin to understand. In this case, what US
politicians will not realize is that Russia herself has changed a great deal in the past years:
many new laws and regulation (see machine translated example
here ) were adopted which, in essence, "plugged" many political "holes" in the Russian
legislation which allowed AngloZionist organizations to have a great deal of influence in
Russia. As a result of these reforms, it has become far more difficult for western run NGOs to
influence the Russian political scene.
As a direct result of these new rules, I expect that a higher ratio of money will stay
allocated to activities situated in the West and less for Russian-based activities. In plain
English, this means that more US printed money will be spent on completely useless activities.
The only people benefitting from this will be the entire class of pseudo "Russia experts" whose
only true expertise is on how to secure grant money. They will produce even more conferences
and papers which nobody will care about, but which will allow the US Neocons and their deep
state to show how "Biden is firm with Russia". The typical US cocktail of waste, mismanagement
and fraud (and let's not forget good old corruption!).
Russia's response to that will also be "more of the same": Russian politicians will continue
to express their disgust with their western "partners" (FYI – when Russians speak of
"partners" it is understood by all that they mean this only sarcastically). Foreign Minister Lavrov and one of his
deputies have recently made statements basically indicating that Russia will not seek any
(!) form of dialog with the West, because, frankly, it is pretty clear to them that this is a
total waste of time: Russia has nobody in the West to speak to: the only country with real
agency (albeit severely limited by its subordination to Israel) would be the US, all the other
countries of the West are really colonies and/or protectorates with no sovereignty at all.
What about all the many military provocations the Empire is organizing all around Russia? Do
they concern Russia leaders or not?
Well, no and yes.
In purely military terms, US/NATO military capabilities are no real threat to Russia whose
military is much smaller, but also much more capable than the western ones. Why? Simply because
building a truly powerful military has been a core strategic priority for the Kremlin who
needed a military actually capable of a) deterring the West from attacking Russia and b)
defeating the West should deterrence fail. In sharp contrast, western militaries have not been
training for real wars for decades already: most of what the US/NATO do is using western
militaries for all sorts of propaganda purposes (like "sending messages" or "showing
determination" etc.) and for counter-insurgency operations, not for fighting a real, major,
wars.
Right now the Russian military is much more modern (about 80% of new gear on average across
all military branches and services!) and much better trained for real combat operations. In
sharp contrast, the US MIC is heavy on hot air (Space Force! Hypersonic missiles! Artificial
Intelligence!) and short on any actually deployed and engageable weapon systems. Away from the
propaganda machine (aka "corporate legacy ziomedia"), the reality is that the West is about
1.5-2 decades behind Russia in most critical military technologies.
Last, but not least, wars are not won by machines, computers or fancy engineering: they are
won by soldiers, real men, who know what they are defending and why. The contrast between the
typical Russian soldier (in any service or branch of the military) and his western counterpart
could not be greater than it is today. Simply put: no western country can boast that it has
soldiers like Russia has and, again, I don't mean the "super dooper" elite Spetsnaz operators,
I am talking about your very average, garden variety, infantry soldier, like the ones who saved
Russia in the Chechen conflict in spite of operating in truly horrible and totally chaotic
circumstances. These guys might not look like much, but as soldiers they are the kind every
commander dreams about.
All this is to say that Russians have nothing to fear from all the western sabre-rattling,
except maybe one thing: the rogue officer, on either side, who would suddenly decide to open
fire (for whatever reason) thereby creating a situation which could escalate into a full-scale
war very rapidly.
The other thing which is objectively bad for Russia is the number of key treaties the US has
now withdrawn from: these treaties are most needed, especially as confidence building measures.
Right now there are very few treaties left and that means that the US is desperate to try to
suck Russia into an arms race.
This won't work.
Why?
Putin himself explained it very well when he recently said that while the West throws huge
sums of money at any problem, Russia allocates brains, not money. According to Putin, it is the
use of brains, rather than wasting money, which allowed Russia to develop all the weapon
systems mentioned by Putin for the first time in 2018. This made it possible for Russia to get
ahead by a decade or more, while using only a small fraction of the kind of money the US, and
other western countries, are allocating on "defense" (while not being threatened by anybody!).
In the competition between the US money printing press and the Russian brains, you can be sure
that the latter one will always prevail.
The bottom line is this: the US can spend many hundred billion dollars on " countering
Russian (or Chinese) influence ", but this will do absolutely nothing to help the objective
circumstances and capabilities of the Empire or the US.
So the real question is what will change on the level below direct military
confrontation.
In a recent press conference, Putin mentioned something very interesting about the outgoing
Trump administration. He said:
"The current administration introduced new sanctions against Russia 46 times –
against our legal entities and economic operators. Forty-six times – this has never
ever happened before. But at the same time, bilateral trade grew by 30 percent over the
previous year, oddly enough, even despite those restrictions."
So if the putatively pro-Russian Trump Administration sanctioned Russia 46 times, it is
normal for the Russians to look at Biden with equanimity or even a resigned fatalism: " the
West has always hated us, the West still hates us and the West will always hate us "
– this truism is all but unanimously accepted amongst Russian politicians.
Still, we can count on Biden and Harris to try to show how "tough" they are on Russia and
Putin: they will show their prowess mostly by demanding that their NATO/EU colonies and
protectorates continue "send
messages" to Russia and show their "unity" and "solidarity" with each other, mostly by
parroting self-evidently nonsensical Anglo and German propaganda. Will the bilateral trade
between Russia and the US continue to grow? Probably not as the list of corporations and
agencies the US declares to be under sanctions will only grow further. But never say never,
especially with the comprehensively hypocritical Dems
How about the kind of self-evidently ridiculous stories about Russians using (a clearly
ineffective) combat biological agent like the so-called "Novichok", trying to kill irrelevant
bloggers and failing to do so, or some variation on "animal Assad" "poisoning his own people"?
Will that nonsense also continue? Probably, mainly simply because this is something which the
Empire has demonstratively proved that it has the ability to do. So why not continue,
especially with a press corps willing to parrot even the most ridiculous nonsense.
The bottom line is this: to get a sense of what any actor could do next, one always has to
multiply intentions by capabilities. If there is one thing which the outgoing Maga
Administration has shown, is that its declared intentions and actual capabilities are not at
all commensurate: hence the long list of countries Trump threatened, but never meaningfully
attacked. "Biden" (and I use this term very loosely, meaning "Biden and his real handlers")
will inherit the very same geostrategic toolkit Trump had at his disposal for four years and
which did not make it possible for him to effectively flex muscles, not even against weak and
nearby Venezuela! We can be pretty sure that the rhetoric about Russia will get even more
hate-filled and paranoid. Petty harassment (such as arrest of nationals, closures of offices,
expulsion from various international events, etc.) will also continue, not so much because they
work, but because a lot of people depend on these for their salary.
How likely is a shooting war? In my personal opinion, not very likely at all. I think that
the folks at the Pentagon are mostly aware of the real world out there, and they probably
recognize that the US armed forces are in no condition to fight any halfway capable
opponent.
How likely is it that the US will use a protectorate like the Ukraine or Georgia to reignite
another local war? It is not impossible, especially since the US did support SBU infiltration
of terrorists into Russia. Keep in mind that the sole goal of such (a, frankly, suicidal)
attack would be to provoke Russia into a military response, not to actually achieve anything
else. The main problem here is that the regular armed forces of the Ukraine and Georgia are in
no condition to fight, and that the (US letter soup controlled) Ukrainian and Georgian special
services have already tried this many times, and so far without success, mainly because, unlike
all the western countries, Russia has the actual means to lock her borders when needed.
What about the reported plan to destabilize Russia by creating conflicts all along her
periphery?
It would take way too long for me here to describe what is taking place in each of these
countries right now, but I will offer just the following bullet points:
Southern Military District or
the 58th
Combined Arms Army in the region). Those who believe that Turkey strengthened its
position in the region simply do not understand the outcome of the recent war (especially the
very interesting drone war which showed that while Armenia could not deal with them, Russian
EW literally destroyed Turkish drones in mid-air (this also happened in Syria, by the way).
Central Asia is an inherently unstable region, mainly because these countries never succeeded
in effectively transitioning from the Soviet period to full independence. And yes, the US has
a great deal of influence in this region. But only Russia can provide effective security
guarantees to the leaders of Central Asia, they all know that. Finally, Kazakhstan plays an
important "buffer" role for Russia,
putting distance between her and her chronically unstable southern neighbors . In the Far
East, Russia and China are enjoying a long honeymoon in which their already very deep
relationship only gets deeper and their collaboration stronger (in spite of western PSYOPs
trying to scare Russians about how China wants to take Siberia, and other silly fairy tales).
Russia is now even supplying key strategic defense technologies to China. Last, but most
certainly not least, Russia has total superiority in the Arctic, where the West is many
decades behind Russia. In fact, Russia is massively expanding her capabilities (civilian and
military) in the Russian north, which will give her even more weight on our planet's very
rich north.
Now ask yourself: do you see any of that changing in the next 4 years, even assuming a
rabidly hostile Biden Administration? I sure don't.
Conclusion:
Yes, the political atmosphere between Russia and the Empire will get worse. Most of the
"action" will take place in the public media space. The quasi simultaneous collapse of the
Anglo-Zionist Empire and the United States (at least as we knew them before the election steal)
will not give much time or energy to western leaders to pursue policies which have already
failed in the past and for which they simply do not have the means.
Trump or Biden was never a meaningful choice for Russia (only the Russian court jester
Zhirinovskii thought otherwise). It's not much of a choice today either. The most likely
consequence of these collapses will be that the world will split in roughly two sections:
"Section A" which will include all the countries of the "collective West" and which will be
busy trying to survive a crisis which has only begun and "Section B": the rest of the world,
which will try hard to decouple itself from the sinking West and try to develop itself in this
rather unstable environment.
Also, many Russians remember the gerontocracy which ruled in the last years of the USSR and
they know how such gerontocracies act (make no difference if the country is ruled by a
Chernenko or a Biden – such rulers are always weak and clueless).
i remember the late 80's when ronald reagan was declared a genius for single handedly
spending the ussr into oblivion. when the reagan administration took over (with a little help
from daddy bush working a deal with the iranians to hold on to the hostages until after the
election) the national debt was $900,000,000,000. when he left office he had tripled that, a
small price to pay for taking down the evil empire, they told me. in the 90's clinton and his
best friend newt gingrich magically balanced the budget (by raiding the social security trust
fund and leaving a rubber iou behind). when the skull and bones division of the neocons
seized power the debt was $6,000,000,000,000. twenty years and several wars later we were at
$23,000,000,000,000. we are about to reach $30,000,000,000,000 after a bad flu season this
year. our military is exhausted, our equipment is so out dated and worn it isn't worth
bringing back, (if we ever leave the middle east), the russians and chinese are decades ahead
in technological terms. now tell me, who spent who into oblivion?
Russia remains vulnerable to Western efforts at political subversion. And Democrats excel
at this. Remember, it was during the presidency of Barack Obama when Putin faced toughest
challenge to his rule. I'm talking, of course, about Bolotnaya protests.
These days millions of Russian kids watch political videos, promoted by Youtube, where
they are being taught, that their country sucks and there is no hope for their lives
whatsoever unless they overthrow Putin. Russian politicians do not use the internet and
appear completely oblivious to this danger. They're a bit like Saker to be honest: obsessed
with their tank divisions and rockets, dinosaurs preparing for yesterday's war. They risk
finding themselves in Lukashenka's position.
Excellent article. Even the US Marine Corps is cutting infantry battalions to fund
"information groups". A new video addresses this anti-Russian propaganda:
Russia doesn't have the working bodies to be a world hegemon.
CCP China does.
The Russian workers (Moscow, Cyprus) I've seen were indolent compared to Chinese.
Infiltration? Even here, the CCP leaning faction is large.
China appears to be Biden's highest bidder, and largest "investor", so far
Either Trump drops the hammer before Jan 20, or we're fucked on China.
Probably so's Russia, on a longer schedule.
Warsaw Pact was canclled –but NATO grew and grew and grew after Bush stating " We
will never expand–honest" and then 911 arrived and Firechief exclaimng "We decided to
PULL IT !" but othing had struck it and of course WMD in Iraq -- –
It's improbable that there would be any direct military clash somewhere even though
there's always the possibility of a mistake leading to a crisis. The US uses color
revolutions, proxy wars, subversion, bribery, economic warfare, sanctions and varying forms
of sabotage. It's been pretty successful so far with this all over the world but Russia is
too big and self-sufficient to be forced to capitulate.
rhetoric about Russia will get even more hate-filled and paranoid
The US propaganda system always needs a boogeyman to scare the public with. Promotion of
fear is an inherent part of the American system of engineering consent.
far more difficult for western run NGOs to influence the Russian political scene.
Big tech collusion in enforcing censorship here in the US has become heavy-handed and
omnipresent. But one supposes there'll be complaints about lack of free speech in Russia.
Trump was verbally belligerent but stopped short of starting any new wars, placating the
establishment with imposing sanctions, assassinating Soleimani, etc. Biden is a stupid,
reckless incompetent who could easily stumble us into conflicts we can't handle. But then, it
would be his handlers who actually pull the strings and they seem to be as cretinous as
him.
As for the "deplorables" – they have been neutralized by stealing the
election.
Neutralized? No way José, the deplorables are mad as hornets about the stolen
election and are just getting started. And they have their Second Amendment assets, and it's
not even January 20th yet.
Do you see the 'YouTube' kids starting a revolution, storming the Kremlin, and the
'organs' watching them with arms crossed from the side? Wouldn't they rather send them to
develop the Arctic?
Unlike the 80s there is no official ideological differences except that Russia's ideology
of national sovereignty, family and strength is in assendence while the US Marxist one of
globo homo anti white hate thyself BLM is openly ridiculed by the quiet majority.
It is about the US that people openly talk about being on the verge of civil war not
Russia these days.
Most Russians know it's a fight against subjugation there is no other way, defend itself
or get eaten.
Besides under the Harris presidency in a year or two it will be white Americans who will
be told officially they suck.
These days millions of Russian kids watch political videos, promoted by Youtube, where
they are being taught, that their country sucks and there is no hope for their lives
whatsoever unless they overthrow Putin
The cleverest trick the Devil ever invented was to convince young (white) people that
Globohomo, Blacks Lives Matter and Immigration are somehow a benefit to them and that they
should fight for their own displacement
Biden has a lot of compromat and Harris is basically akin to a wigger in a black gang, who
will need to prove her devotion when she takes the reigns after Biden.
Both will be like putty in their handler's hands.
Politicians start wars to make the public look away from domestic or personal crises.
Biden already has his corruption probe, and whilst Trump made many errors, he did not fall
for the trap of starting a major foreign policy disaster for personal political gain.
Both Biden and Harris would do that in a heartbeat. So whether that would be Iran or
Ukraine, or pushing Taiwan too far, I'm pretty confident a war will start.
I always said with Trump the odd's are 80% civil war, 10% world war, 10% peace, whilst
Biden is around 50% civil war, 45% world war, 5% peace.
Nice display of your brainwashedness, from western propaganda.
You didn't follow Saker's link to the machine translated example , did you?
One would need a bit more than broad, completely unsubstantiated claims by you that
Russian kids in large numbers actually believe those YT lies and similar.
And Lukashenko isn't doing so bad, currently.
@Felix
Keverich ng "dusty, dirty" -- a term used in 2nd-millennium BCE texts throughout the
Fertile Crescent for people variously described as rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries,
bowmen, servants, slaves, and laborers"(Wikipedia).
The 2001 paper "Who are the Hîabiru of the Amarna Letters?" by retired professor
(Andrews University) S. Douglas Waterhouse (2001) joined a lot of dots for me. A good stumble
on, thanks, Guyénot and others who posted relevant comments etc. (A copy can be found
here: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jats/vol12/iss1/3/
)
@Carlos22
ashion. Yet that is what the US empire wants. It is hard to imagine the opportunity for
satire could be greater.
Here is some preliminary ideas
https://www.youtube.com/embed/noIWQFMskG0?feature=oembed
I also did a satire on Bellingcat called Bellingbat that examines some of the same issues. Of
course there is a fair amount of nudity involved as that is the US way when considering if
powerful females can be trusted. Unlike Lautrec I was never allowed into the ballerina's
dressing rooms even though I was a recognized well respected painter and would seek death
should I betray a slack breast or two.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/8Z9pggzVJ68?feature=oembed
Cheers all and have a happy new year.
"Last, but not least, wars are not won by machines, computers or fancy engineering: they
are won by soldiers, real men, who know what they are defending and why."
Azerbaijan just ate Putin's lunch by crushing Armenia's entire AA systems and their piece
by piece destruction of hundreds of T90's and all the Armenian artillery. Azerbaijan
accomplished this through Israeli military technology, likely including remote drone piloting
services.
Saker wants to pretend that it is the US that has Israel on a leash, but it is clearly the
other way around. Israel has already hoovered up all of the US electronics and military
patents and clearly any other patents that would be useful in a war, especially a war for
Eretz Israel.
Azerbaijan took out all the Armenian armor and air defenses with Israeli drones like the
Hovering Artillery Drones and Suicide drones. The amount of live film is staggering, and the
T90's were picked off like sparrows sitting on an electric wire. Some of the drones
Azerbaijan used were Turkish, but we can be certain that the technology is either licensed
from Israel or Israel's gollum the JEWSA.
Added to this complete mastery of the traditional battlespace is the complete Heeb control
over the bio-warfare space. Whether Putin allowed Russia to be circumcised while he played
along to the Rabbi's Covid rituals, or whether Putin is playing it safe and vaccinating and
closing its borders pre-emtively is irrellevant. Russia is being bullied like a lone teenage
Swedish boy at muslim majority high school in Malmo.
And of course, Russia still has a Rothschild controlled Central Bank too.
So Putin, just like Biden, is going to do exactly what his Chabad Lubbovitz Rabbi's tell
him he has to do. Both are Israel's Shabbez Bitches.
@Felix
Keverich everyone knows that the US and England hate Russia and Putin, thus whatever
these 2 countries claim about either is dismissed with a laugh. As for Skripal (where are
they now? dead?), Navalny, novichok, Assad gassing his own people ..a child can see through
this stuff. Sorry!
Young people in Russia watching US propaganda against their country you honestly think
they are going to agree with the country (USA) that has targeted them with missiles and
nuclear bombs for 70 years? Do you think we can't see the corruption and stupidity?
But I'm wasting my time here. Facts, logic, is lost on a person so naive and brainwashedas
yourself.
he's pretending to be Russian intelligent, which I doubt – not his name nor his
thoughts seem to be Russian.
He's right only in one thing – there's quite a big part of our society who think that
Putin (despite his obvious achievements) has to go. And those aren't liberasts, but patriots.
Putin is very deep in oligarchy swamp and he achieved max he could, i'm afraid.
Now he's just trying to keep the status quo.
I believe you have a serious problem. When the stork brought you, it must have dropped you
on your head. Your comment is sheer nonsense. Do you really believe the shit you have written
or do you have a vulgar desire for "replies".
You are either an idiot or an ass wash douche troll. Comment intelligently or not at all
and for heavens sake, seek medical attention for the lump on your head ( and the one inside
it as well)
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own drama . And while you're
studying that drama -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other
new dramas , which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
drama's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Dont be so hard on Felix the cat. He has been hiding under his mother;s bed surrounded by
rolls of toilet paper and wearing a mask since March 2020. Self imposed solitary confinement
does things to a person more so one who was retarded at birth.
Once he has his operation to remove his head from his ass his IQ should increase by 100%
.from 2 to 4 !
Patrick Armstrong spent 30 years as an analyst for the Canadian government, specializing
in first the USSR and then Russia. He was a Political Counselor in the Canadian Embassy in
Moscow from 1993 to 1996. Given the torrent of anti-Russian sentiment in the West, it's
unlikely Moscow would get a fair hearing in legal proceedings overseen by Western courts. And
recent hints suggest three decades of engagement may be coming to an end.
A Dutch court has just reversed another earlier Dutch court ruling that reversed an even
earlier Dutch court ruling. Russia had been sued by a company representing the shareholders of
erstwhile oil giant Yukos. The latest iteration, reversing the reversal and taking us back to
the original judgment, demands that Russia pay $50 billion to its shareholders. Yukos was
nationalized in the early 2000s, on the grounds of failure to pay tax arrears after the arrest
of its CEO for tax evasion.
So, what should Moscow do? It has appealed, but perhaps it should think about whether it
still wants to play the game.
Let's look at the behavior of other Dutch courts. In 2001, Slobodan Milošević
appeared at the Hague charged with crimes against humanity, genocide – the full package.
And, quite rightly, said most Westerners, because had not their media already named him the
"butcher of the Balkans" ?
In 2016, the International Court of Justice ruled that maybe he hadn't been as guilty as
first assumed. But it was too late: Milošević had died in his prison cell 10 years
before, with the trial still rolling on.
The Netherlands is also in charge of the investigation into the destruction of the MH-17
flight over Ukraine in 2014. Again, we had immediate Western news assertions that Putin and
Russia were responsible, and the personal assurance of former Secretary of State John Kerry
that US intelligence resources had watched the whole thing unfold. And it's been a fact-free
Gish gallop ever since.
After several investigations, suspiciously dependent on Ukrainian intelligence sources,
social media, and the US-government funded agency Bellingcat, with no one asking where the
"we saw it" was, the trial of four individuals began in March 2020 and has been
proceeding at the same comfortable pace as the Milošević trial.
In 2018, Ukraine, without the least suspicion of a chain of evidence, produced some parts it
claimed were from the surface-to-air missile said to have shot the plane down. The parts had
numbers, numbers can be traced, and the missile factory traced them. They were parts of a
missile shipped to an anti-aircraft unit in the west of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
in December 1986.
The judges decided that the documents were irrelevant because they "may say something
about where the missile was between [19]86 and 91, but they say nothing about where the missile
was in July 2014." Presumably, a daring raid from Donetsk to an ammo dump in Western
Ukraine had happened, which nobody noticed. So, one might ask what Russia can expect from any
trial held in the Netherlands except an interminable process until the defendant dies.
Russians might then turn their attention to the practice of the rule of law in other Western
countries today. Huawei's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, is approaching her third year
of house arrest in Canada. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been in a British prison with
one of the most severe regimes for the past 18 months and is approaching the second year of his
extradition hearing. Maria Butina, convicted in 2018 of acting as an unregistered foreign agent
of Russia, was in a US prison for five months, often in solitary confinement, on very
questionable charges. Senior French executive Frédéric Pierucci arrested in 2013
and later imprisoned in a US maximum-security facility for unwittingly breaching American
bribery laws. Or the US's open-ended Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
– a federal law that, in 2017, imposed sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Or the
huge fine imposed on Russia's Gazprom energy corporation in a Polish court just last month over
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Or they might consider that Venezuela stored its national gold
reserves in London for safekeeping but can't have it back (although that judgment has recently
been reversed – for now). Or that the European Union extended its sanctions on Russia
because it couldn't prove its innocence of the latest accusation over Ukraine. Russian
observers might be forgiven if they regarded this as not rule of law but war of law –
lawfare.
Moscow has generally played the game and accepted Western court rulings and, sometimes,
they've gone its way: for example, the European Court of Human Rights' ruling of 2011 that the
case against Yukos founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky had not been politically motivated. But, given
the relentless cascade of accusations – redoubled in the past five years – perhaps
Moscow should reconsider, on the grounds that Western 'justice' will never give it a fair
shake.
Will it do so? Well, there have been some hints. At a conference of the Valdai Discussion
Club think tank last month, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia no longer looked to
Western Europe as an example and was not going to be its vassal. The constitution was recently
amended to make Russian law primary. These would appear to be clues that Moscow is at least
pondering the conclusion that Western courts are not an arbiter, but a weapon.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Moscow is set for a showdown with Western judges and 1990s Russian oligarchs, over a new
ruling enabling the country to refuse to pay what is considered to be the biggest legal
settlement in history, over a collapsed oil empire.
The Constitutional Court, one of Russia's highest judicial authorities, ruled on Friday that
the decision of an international tribunal in the long-running dispute over the now-dissolved
energy giant Yukos is incompatible with Russian law. The case has been heard by a court in The
Hague, which claims jurisdiction under the terms of the Energy Charter Treaty, and awarded the
company's former shareholders a $50-billion payout from the Russian government earlier this
year. Moscow claimed a win in November on the other side of the Atlantic, when a US court,
which had been hearing the case simultaneously, decided to throw it out.
However, as Russia signed but never ratified the Treaty, which hands powers to international
tribunals, the Constitutional Court has now determined it is not bound by the terms of The
Hague judgement. The ruling states that, while the country's government of the day began the
process of signing up to the pact in 1994, they did not have the authority to make national
laws inferior to international agreements, or to "challenge the competence" of Russian
courts. Therefore, the jurists conclude, adhering to the Dutch court's demands would be
"unconstitutional."
The claimants in the case are oligarchs who lost cash when Yukos, once among Europe's
largest firms, collapsed. They say that a multi-billion dollar tax bill and the arrest of its
CEO and founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, on fraud charges amounted to state 'appropriation' of
its assets. However, Russian authorities insist that the shareholders cannot be considered
"legitimate," and that the Dutch judges had steamrolled over the country's laws against
corruption and fraud when ruling in their favour.
As far back as July 2014, The Hague ordered Moscow to cough up $50 billion to compensate the
plaintiffs. After exhausting the appeals process in February this year, Russia's lawyers asked
the Dutch Supreme Court to consider the case and overrule the decision. However, at the start
of December, it similarly backed the oligarchs.
Russia has insisted that the judgements are "politically motivated," and in December
the country's Justice Minister, Konstantin Chuychenko, told journalists that the case was part
of a "legal war that has been declared on Russia." He added that "Russia must
adequately defend itself and, sometimes, even attack back."
Now standing at around $50 billion, around the same ballpark as Russia's annual military
budget, the colossal settlement is thought to be the largest award in history. If the country
now rejects the bill, it would spark one of the most serious impasses in international legal
history, and leave Western states deciding whether to respect Russia's constitutional ruling,
or to enforce the demands by confiscating assets.
Yukos' former shareholders have already sought to have Western governments take control of
Russian property overseas as an insurance policy in case Moscow refuses to pay up. However, in
November, a judge in the simultaneous hearing in the US refused that request, saying that
"the Russian Federation is a sovereign country with economic tendrils that cross the globe,
not an insecure potential debtor that must be required to post security lest there be no assets
to seize at a later date."
Not all countries have taken the same approach, however, and in 2015 Russia's diplomats
slammed France and Belgium for confiscating state cash in overseas banks, and even buildings,
to be held as collateral in the case. Moscow again rejected the court's authority and said
their move was "an openly hostile act." Tim Osborne, a British lawyer representing the
former shareholders, said at the time that such seizures were necessary because Russia "has
no regard for international law or the rule of law."
At its height, Yukos produced 20 per cent of Russia's oil, placing it firmly among the ranks
of the world's most valuable enterprises. It had been formed by the privatization of former
state assets after the fall of the Soviet Union, with Khodorkovsky acquiring the assets for a
fraction of their worth at an auction that one economist, Andrey Illarionov, called "the
swindle of the century."
Khodorkovsky claims his arrest on fraud charges and the subsequent collapse of Yukos
was tied to his
political activism and his personal animosity towards Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin,
however, claims that the oligarch, once said to be Russia's wealthiest man, had admitted his
guilt to him privately in exchange for a pardon in 2013.
Khodorkovsky insists that he has renounced any claims to his former empire and that, should
a settlement be reached in the Yukos case, he would not stand to benefit. However, Russian
authorities are said to suspect that a number of claimants have close financial ties to the
former oil magnate.
On December 17, 2020, a new US Maritime strategy was unveiled putting into practice the
regressive concepts first outlined in the early National Defense Strategy 2020 doctrine which
target China and Russia as the primary enemies of the USA and demanding that the USA be capable
to " defeat our adversaries while we accelerate development of a modernized integrated
all-domain naval force of the future".
The Pentagon's
Advantages at Sea: Prevailing with Integrated All-Domain Naval Power continued by saying
"China's and Russia's revisionist approaches in the maritime environment threaten US interests,
undermine alliances and partnerships and degrade the free and open international order
moreover, China's and Russia's aggressive naval growth and modernization are eroding US
institutional advantages."
The document continued to describe that "we must operate more assertively to prevail in
day-to-day competition as we uphold the rules-based order and deter our competitors from
pursuing armed aggression ready, forward-deployed naval forces will adopt a more assertive
posture in day to day operations"
For anyone who has been paying attention to the vast growth of the Pentagon's Full Spectrum
containment policy around China's perimeter begun with Obama's Asia Pivot, it may appear as
though these words are not new, but just a continuation of American unipolar agenda, Pacific
war games, and psychological projection onto perceived enemies, that have been underway for
years. While this is certainly true, it must be noted that they are occurring at a time that
NATO 2030 has
enshrined an anti-China military posture into the Trans Atlantic security doctrine which had
formerly channeled most of its hate purely onto Russia.
The fact is those unipolar zombies programmed to think in no other terms but global
post-nation state dominance are deathly afraid of the Russia-China bond of survival which has
created a uniquely viable foundation for an alternative economic/security architecture for the
world. This model is based on a system of finance that defines money not in speculative but
rather long-term development of the real economic foundations of life. It also features a
strong emphasis on win-win cooperation as opposed to Hobbesian zero-sum logic dominant among
western powers, and it also finds itself driven by OPEN system economic practices shaped by
unbounded scientific and technological progress that once upon a time guided America's better
traditions.
With the obvious threat of nuclear war breaking out between a collapsing unipolar order in
the west and an emergent Multipolar alliance, it is important to review what possible latent
policy traditions may yet be revived within America's history which certain forces have worked
very hard to scrub out of the historical record and memory. This study will take us to the
incredible fights that arose over America's identity at the turn of the 20th century during the
period of President William McKinley and the treasonous anglophile President of vice, Theodore
Roosevelt.
Munroe Doctrine or Empire?
As
Martin Sieff eloquently laid out in his recent article , President McKinley himself was an
peacemaker, anti-imperialist of a higher order than most people realize. McKinley was also a
strong supporter of two complementary policies: 1) Internally, he was a defender of Lincoln's
"American system" of protectionism, internal improvements and black suffrage and 2) Externally,
he was a defender of the Munroe Doctrine that defined America's
anti-imperial foreign policy since 1823.
"After fifty years the United States has, without a single exception, respected the
independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own.
That the United States does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only
of her own.
That by involving itself in the internal affairs of other nations, the United States would
destroy its own reason of existence; the fundamental maxims of her policy would become, then,
no different than the empire America's revolution defeated. It would be, then, no longer the
ruler of itself, but the dictator of the world."
America's march is the march of mind, not of conquest.
Colonial establishments are engines of wrong, and that in the progress of social
improvement it will be the duty of the human family to abolish them".
It was an aging John Quincy Adams whom a young Abraham Lincoln collaborated with in ending
the imperial Mexican-American war under Wall Street stooge James Polk in 1846. When Adams died
in 1848, Lincoln picked up the torch he left behind as the London-directed "proto deep state"
of the 19th century worked to dissolve the republic from within. The foreign policy conception
laid out by Adams ensured that America's only concern was "staying out of foreign imperial
entanglements" as Washington
had earlier warned and keeping foreign imperial interests out of the Americas. The idea of
projecting power onto the weak or subduing other cultures was anathema to this genuinely
American principle.
A major battle which has been intentionally obscured from history books took place in the
wake of Lincoln's murder and the re-ascension of the City of London-backed slave power during
the decades after the Union victory of 1865. On the one hand America's role in the emerging
global family of nations was being shaped by followers of Lincoln who wished to usher in an age
of win-win cooperation. Such an anti-Darwinian system which Adams called "
a community of principle " asserted that each nation had the right to sovereign banking
controls over private finance, productive credit emissions tied to internal improvements with a
focus on continental (rail/road) development, industrial progress and full spectrum economies.
Adherents of this program included Russia's Sergei Witte and Alexander II, Germany's Otto von
Bismarck, France's Sadi Carnot, and leading figures within Japan's Meiji Restoration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/gYeVDjFKpOU
On the other hand, "eastern establishment families" of the USA more loyal to the gods of
money, hereditary institutions and the vast international empire of Britain saw America's
destiny tied to an imperial global partnership with the Mother country. These two opposing
paradigms within America have defined two opposing views of "progress", "value",
"self-interest" and "law" which have continued to shape the world over 150 years
later.
William Gilpin vs Alfred Mahan: Two Paradigms Clash
A champion of the former traditionally American outlook who rose to the international scene
was William
Gilpin (1813-1894). Gilpin hailed from a patriotic family of nation builders whose
patriarch Thomas Gilpin was a close ally of Benjamin Franklin and leading member of Franklin's
Philosophical Society. William Gilpin was famous for his advocacy of America's trans
continental railway whose construction he proselytized as early as 1845 (it was finally begun
by Lincoln during the Civil War and completed in 1869 as I outlined in my previous paper
How to Save a Dying Republic ).
In his thousands of speeches and writings, Gilpin made it known that he understood America's
destiny to be inextricably tied to the ancient civilization of China- not to impose opium as
the British and their American lackies were want to do, but to learn from and even emulate!
In 1852, Gilpin stated:
"Salvation must come to America from China, and this consists in the introduction of the
"Chinese constitution" viz. the "patriarchal democracy of the Celestial Empire". The
political life of the United States is through European influences, in a state of complete
demoralization, and the Chinese Constitution alone contains elements of regeneration. For
this reason, a railroad to the Pacific is of such vast importance, since by its means the
Chinese trade will be conducted straight across the North American continent. This trade must
bring in its train Chinese civilization. All that is usually alleged against China is mere
calumny spread purposefully, just like those calumnies which are circulated in Europe about
the United States".
With Lincoln's 1861 presidential victory, Gilpin became Lincoln's bodyguard and ensured the
president survived
his first assassination attempt en route to Washington from Illinois. During the Civil War,
Gilpin was made Colorado's first Governor where he successfully stopped the southern power from
opening up a western front during the war of secession (applying Lincoln's greenback system to
finance his army on a state level) and winning the " Battle of Glorieta Pass ", thus
saving the union.
After the war Gilpin became a leading advocate of the internationalization of the "American
system of political economy" which Lincoln applied vigorously during his short-lived
presidency. Citing the success of Lincoln's system, Gilpin said:
"No amount of argument will make America adopt old world theories To rely upon herself, to
develop her own resources, to manufacture everything that can possibly be manufactured within
her territory- this is and has been the policy of the USA from the time of Alexander Hamilton
to that of Henry Clay and thence to our own days".
Throughout his speeches Gilpin emphasizes the role of a U.S.-Russia alliance:
"It is a simple and plain proposition that Russia and the United States, each having
broad, uninhabited areas and limitless undeveloped resources, would by the expenditure of 2
or 3 hundred millions apiece for a highway of the nations threw their now waste places, add a
hundredfold to their wealth and power and influence"
And seeing in China's potential the means to re-enliven the world- including the decadent
and corrupt culture of Europe:
"In Asia a civilization resting on a basis of remote antiquity has had, indeed, a long
pause, but a certain civilization- although hitherto hermetically sealed up has continued to
exist. The ancient Asiatic colossus, in a certain sense, needed only to be awakened to new
life and European culture finds a basis there on which it can build future reforms."
In opposition to the outdated British controls of "chock points" on the seas which kept the
world under the clutches of the might of London, Gilpin advocated loudly for a system of
internal improvements, rail development, and growth of the innate goodness of all cultures and
people through scientific and technological progress. Once a global system of mutual
development of rail were established, Gilpin stated "in the shipment of many kinds of raw and
manufactured goods, it will largely supersede the ocean traffic of Great Britain, in whose
hands is now carrying the trade of the world."
Gilpin's vision was most clearly laid out in his 1890 magnum opus "The Cosmopolitan Railway" which
featured designs for development corridors across all continents united by a "community of
principle".
Echoing the win-win philosophy of Xi Jinping's New Silk Road today, Gilpin stated:
"The cosmopolitan railway will make the whole world one community. It will reduce the
separate nations to families of our great nation From extended intercommunication will arise
a wider intercourse of human ideas and as the result, logical and philosophical
reciprocities, which will become the germs for innumerable new developments; for in the track
of intercommunication, enterprise and invention invariably follow and whatever facilitates
one stimulates every other agency of progress."
Mahan Derails America's Anti-Imperial Identity
Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914) represented an opposing paradigm which true American
statesmen like Lincoln, Secretary of State James Blaine, William Seward, President Grant,
William Garfield, and McKinley detested. Sadly, with McKinley's murder (
run by an anarchist ring with ties to British Intelligence ) and the rise of Teddy
Roosevelt in 1901, it was not Gilpin's but rather Mahan's worldview which became the dominant
foreign policy doctrine for the next 120 years (despite a few brief respites under FDR and
JFK).
Mahan is commonly credited for being a co-founder of modern geopolitics and an inspiration
for Halford Mackinder. Having graduated from West Point's naval academy in 1859, Mahan soon
became renowned as a total failure in actual combat having crashed warships repeatedly into
moving and stationary objects during the Civil War. Since reality was not his forte, Mahan
focused his post-war career on Ivory tower theorizing gushing over maps of the world and
fawning over Britain's power as a force of world history.
His "Influence of Sea Power
Upon History 1660-1783 published in the same year that Gilpin published his Cosmopolitan
Railway (1890) was a total break from the spirit of win-win cooperation that defined America's
foreign policy. According to
the Diplomat , this book soon "became the bible for many navies around the world" with the
Kaiser of Germany (now released from the influence of the great rail-loving statesman Otto von
Bismarck whom he fired in 1890) demanding all of his offers read. Later Teddy Roosevelt ordered
copies for every member of Congress. In Mahan's book, the geopolitician continuously asserts
his belief that it is America's destiny to succeed the British Empire.
Taking the British imperial definition of "commerce" which uses free trade as a cover for
the military dominance of weak nations (open borders and turning off protectionism simply makes
a people easier to rob), Mahan attempts to argue that America need not continue to adhere to
"outdated" habits like the Munroe doctrine since the new order of world empires demands America
stay relevant in a world of sea power and empire. Mahan writes : "The advance of Russia in
Asia, in the division of Africa, in the colonial ambitions of France and in the British idea of
Imperial Federation, now fast assuming concrete shape in practical combined action in South
Africa" demands that the USA act accordingly.
Attempting to refute the "outdated habits" of rail development which consume so many foolish
statesmen around the globe, Mahan states: "a railway competes in vain with a river because more
facile and copious, water traffic is for equal distances much cheaper and because cheaper, more
useful". Like those attacking today's Belt and Road Initiative, the power of railways is that
their returns are not measurable by simple monetary terms, but are rather QUALITATIVE. The
long-term construction of rail systems not only unite divided people, increase manufacturing
and industrial corridors but also induce closer powers of association and interchange between
agriculture and urban producers. These processes uplift national productive powers building
full spectrum economies and also a culture's capacity for creative thought.
The attempt made to justify sea traffic merely because "larger amounts of goods can be
shipped" is purely quantitative and monetaristic sophistry devoid of any science of real
value.
While Gilpin celebrates the successful awakening of China and other great nations of the
world, in the
Problem of Asia (1901) Mahan says:
"It is scarcely desirable that so vast a proportion of mankind as the Chinese constitute
should be animated by but one spirit". Should China "burst her barriers eastward, it would be
impossible to exaggerate the momentous issues dependant upon a firm hold of the Hawaiian
islands by a great civilized maritime power."
Mahan's adherence to social Darwinism is present throughout his works as he defines the
political differences of the 3 primary branches of humanity (Teutonic, Slavic and Asiatic) as
purely rooted in the intrinsic inferiority or superiority of their race saying: "There are
well recognized racial divergencies which find concrete expression in differences equally
marked of political institution, of social progress and of individual development. These
differences are deep seated in the racial constitution and partly the result of the
environment". Mahan goes onto restate his belief that unlike the superior Teutonics "the
Oriental, whether national or individual does not change" and "the East does not
progress".
Calling China a carcass to be devoured by an American eagle, Mahan writes: "If life departs,
a carcass can be utilized only by dissection or for food; the gathering to it of the eagles is
a natural law, of which it is bootless to complain the onward movement of the world has to be
accepted as a fact."
Championing an Anglo American alliance needed to subdue and "civilize" China as part of the
post-Boxer Rebellion, Mahan says " of all the nations we shall meet in the East, Great Britain
is the one with which we have by far the most in common in the nature of our interests there
and in our standards of law and justice".
In case there was any doubt in the minds of Mahan's readers as to the MEANS which America
should assert its dominance onto China, Mahan makes clear his belief that progress is caused by
1) force and 2) war:
"That such a process should be underlain by force on the part of outside influences, force
of opposition among the latter themselves [speaking of the colonial European monarchies
racing to carve up China in 1901 -ed] may be regrettable, but it is only a repetition of all
history Every step forward in the march that has opened in China to trade has been gained by
pressure; the most important have been the result of actual war."
A Last Anti-Imperial Push
The chaos induced by the anti-foreigner Boxer Rebellion of 1899 which spread quickly across
China resulted a heated battle between imperial and anti-imperial forces in both Russia and the
USA. Where Transport Minister Sergei Witte who spearheaded the development of the Trans
Siberian rail line (1890-1905) tried to avoid military entanglement, McKinley was busy doing
the same.
The boxers soon attacked the Manchurian rail connecting Russia to China by land and Witte
succumbed to pressure to finally send in troops. The reformers of China who attempted to
modernize with American and Russian assistance under Emperor Kuang Hsu and Li Hung Chang fell
from power as total anarchy reigned. The outcome of the Boxer chaos involved the imperial
powers of France, Germany and England demanding immense financial reparations, ownership of
Chinese territory and mass executions of the Boxers.
While McKinley is often blamed for America's imperial turn, the reality is just the
opposite.
The Spanish-American war begun in 1898 was actually launched unilaterally by Anglophilic
racist Theodore Roosevelt who used the 4 hour window he had while Undersecretary of the Navy
(while the actual Secretary was out of Washington) to send orders to Captain Dewey of the
Pacific fleet to engage in a fight with the Spanish over their Philippine territories. McKinley
had resisted the war hawks until that point but found himself finally bending to the momentum.
In China, McKinley, like Witte worked desperately to reject taking territory resulting in great
fears from the British oligarchy that a U.S.-Russia alliance led by McKinley and Witte was
immanent.
The assassination of McKinley on September 18, 1901 catapulted Mahan-loving Vice President
Teddy Roosevelt into high office, who enmeshed America into a new epoch of Anglo-American
imperialism abroad, a growth of eugenics and segregation at home and the creation of an
independent police
state agency called the FBI .
"Roosevelt devoted his next eight years in the presidency and the rest of his life to
integrating the United States and the British Empire into a seamless web of racial
imperialist oppression that dominated Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and that
destroyed the cultural history and heritage of the Native North American nations."
In Russia, the 1902 Anglo-Japan Treaty led to the disastrous Japan-Russo war of 1905 which
devastated the Russian navy, ended the political career of Sergei Witte and threw Russia into
chaos leading to the fall of the Romanovs (Czar Nicholas II was the last statesman occupying
high office that this author is aware of to have actively promoted the Bering Strait Tunnel
rail connection in 1906 . It wasn't
until FDR's Vice President Henry Wallace met with Foreign Minister Molotov in 1942 that the
idea resurfaced once more ).
In his Two Peoples One Friendship , Wallace described his discussions with Foreign Minister
Molotov in 1942 saying:
" Of all nations, Russia has the most powerful combination of a rapidly increasing
population, great natural resources and immediate expansion in technological skills. Siberia
and China will furnish the greatest frontier of tomorrow When Molotov [Russia's Foreign
Minister] was in Washington in the spring of 1942 I spoke to him about the combined highway
and airway which I hope someday will link Chicago and Moscow via Canada, Alaska and Siberia.
Molotov, after observing that no one nation could do this job by itself, said that he and I
would live to see the day of its accomplishment. It would mean much to the peace of the
future if there could be some tangible link of this sort between the pioneer spirit of our
own West and the frontier spirit of the Russian East."
While the "open door" rape of the China was attempted by the Anglo-Americans, a fortunate
rear guard maneuver orchestrated by another follower of Abraham Lincoln named Sun Yat-sen
resulted in a surprise overthrow of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 and the institution of the
Republic of China with Sun Yat-sen as the acting President. While Sun Yat-sen sided with Gilpin
and Lincoln in opposition to the Mahanists on the issue of rail and industrial development
(illustrated in his extraordinary 1920 International Development of China
program which called for 160 000 km of rail, water diversion projects, ports and 1.5
million km of paved roads- illustrated below), the intrigues that sank the world into World War
I made any hopes of this early development of China impossible in Sun Yat-sen's lifetime.
Expressing his own deep understanding of these top down tactics of world history (and the
recognition that the same British imperial forces that orchestrated the US Civil War were
planning to do the same to China), Sun Yat-sen wrote in 1912:
"We understand too well that there are certain men of power -- not to include for the
present, certain nations -- who would view with a greater or lesser satisfaction an internal
rupture in the new Republic [of China]. They would welcome, as a move toward the
accomplishment of their own ends and designs, a civil war between the provinces of the North
and the South; just as, 50 years ago, there was applause in secret (in certain quarters) over
the terrible civil strife in the United States.
Americans of today who were alive in those dark days of the great republic will remember
the feelings in the hearts of the people -- the bitter and painful thoughts that arose from
the knowledge that foreigners were hoping and praying for the destruction of the American
Union.
Had the war been successful from the South's standpoint, and had two separate republics
been established, is it not likely that perhaps half a dozen or more weak nations would have
eventually been established? I believe that such would have been the result; and I further
believe that with the one great nation divided politically and commercially, outsiders would
have stepped in sooner or later and made of America their own. I do not believe that I am
stating this too forcibly. If so, I have not read history nor studied men and nations
intelligently.
And I feel that we have such enemies abroad as the American republic had; and that at
certain capitals the most welcome announcement that would be made would be that of a
rebellion in China against the constituted authorities.
This is a hard statement to make; but I believe in speaking the truth so that all the
world may know and recognize it."
Today's Belt and Road Initiative , and strategic friendship established between Russia and
China has re-awoken the forgotten vision of William Gilpin for a world of cooperating sovereign
nation states. Does the USA have the moral ability to avoid disintegration by accepting a
Russia-U.S.-China alliance needed to revive McKinley's American System or will we slip into a
new Great Reset and World War?
Since when has USA needed evidence? They blamed Saddam for years that he had "weapons of
mass distraction". And back in 1990, they created the famous "Iraq solders took babies out fo
incubators " lies. Some of us have lived longer than 30 years and we remember all the lies
USA has said.
All part of the plan to cut Russia from the SWIFT in 2021. Once Biden becomes a president,
he will call on all "democracies" to stand up to Russia. He and other "Western democracies"
will hold a joint meeting sometime in 2021 where they will "condemn Russia for all the malign
things Russia has done" and will press Belgium to cut Russia fro the SWIFT.
Whats wore, instead of doing anything, Russia is just sitting and watching them instead of
warming Europe that this will mean Europe will freeze their collective asses next winter when
they won't be able to get Russia gas. Even Iran is warning Russia that they will be cut off
from the SWIFT...
I have to agree with you, the deep state just cannot get over losing Russia to Putin and
nationalism after the thought that they had turned it into their playground in the 1990s.
They are hot to trot to take out Russia and make it bend the knee, whatever the risks are.
Would not put it past them to pull the SWIFT option, although that would have huge
implications for the Europeans who buy so much oil and gas from Russia.
It could end up as an own goal, as the Europeans join the Russian payments network and
start paying in Euros convertible directly into Rubles (especially with Nordstream 2 in
place). The Indians and Chinese are already setup for payments in local currencies. Right now
China needs Russia as an ally, so they would also probably re-source oil imports to take more
from Russia.
Russia has already made itself self sufficient in food etc., and has been working on
payments in local currencies. They are not stupid, and see such a move coming.
ByFyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs,
chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director
of the Valdai International Discussion Club. This Monday marked 50 years since one of the
20th century's most iconic moments, when German Chancellor Willy Brandt fell to his knees in
Warsaw, emotionally apologizing for the horrors the Nazis had unleashed on Eastern Europe.
It was one of the milestones of the Neue Ostpolitik – Bonn's policy aimed at
normalizing relations with the USSR and its East European satellites. On the day of this
anniversary, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas wrote the following: "Unlike Brandt, we no
longer have to go via Moscow to talk to our eastern neighbors nowadays. Many partners in
Eastern and Central Europe now view Russia very critically – and German foreign policy
must take our neighbors' concerns seriously. In addition to offers of dialogue, clear German
positions vis-à-vis Moscow are therefore important for maintaining trust in Eastern
Europe."
A clear testimony to the fact that, compared to other Eastern European states, Russia is now
of secondary importance to Berlin. This is perhaps the first time it's been stated so
explicitly.
A day later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made several important statements about
relations between Russia and the EU, including the EU's locomotive, Germany. At the annual
meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council, Lavrov pointed out that "apparently,
the European Union has given up any attempts to become one of the centers in the emerging
multipolar world order and is now simply taking its cues from the US. Germany's policy on a
number of issues tells us that this is the course Berlin has chosen, as it reaffirms its
intention to preserve Germany's undisputed leadership within the EU. France's position is
somewhat different. The prevailing notion is that the European Union is now giving up any
ambitions of becoming a center of power in a multipolar world. And if France itself decides to
compete for this role well, we'll see how it goes."
Lavrov also mentioned the concept of a "sham multiculturalism that the Germans and the
French concocted," which they "are promoting, presenting the EU's policies and
initiatives to the world as beyond reproach, a shining example for everyone to see."
Right after that, Russia's top diplomat headed to a meeting with members of the Alternative
for Germany parliamentary party. Lavrov sent a clear message, basically saying that this visit
was his response to the political steps taken by official Berlin. "As for us, we don't have
any objections when German politicians communicate with the Russian opposition, and we never
get in the way of such contacts. Interestingly, Berlin officials prefer meetings with
opposition activists who work outside the system and do not represent parliamentary parties
" Obviously, a nod to the red carpet welcome that Alexey Navalny, a comparatively marginal
opposition figure back home, received in Germany.
While the meeting with a right-wing German party was more of a symbolic gesture, the Foreign
Minister's statement about the EU giving up its independent voice and Germany being the main
driver in this process reflected Moscow's official stance. The Kremlin has decided that it no
longer has any special relations with Berlin.
There is little hope that this connection will be restored in the foreseeable future, since
Angela Merkel's potential successors are even less likely to promote these special ties. The
Navalny case was just the last straw, with the Kremlin astonished by the irrational nature of
Berlin's actions.
Viewed from Russia, it seemed absolutely unnecessary to go against the pragmatic interests
that both countries seemed to have shared in the past. However, the Moscow-Berlin axis, once
viewed as something special, began to deteriorate a long time ago. Now it's over, along with
Russia's dreams about continental Europe changing its allegiances in the new world order and
moving away from its Transatlantic identity towards a more independent role.
And Germany has become the main obstacle for this hypothetical emancipation. That's why
France was mentioned, although the remark was also somewhat sarcastic.
Two months ago, Sergey Lavrov said that Russia was prepared to suspend its dialogue with the
EU, because it wasn't yielding any results. But he was talking about European institutions, not
the continent itself. Now relations with separate European countries are being revised, based
on their stance towards Russia and their role within the European Union. This concludes a very
important phase in Russia's foreign policy that began after the collapse of the Soviet Union
(or, to some degree, even before that) and signifies a transition to a different, probably a
lot less Eurocentric, approach.
The dialogue between Russia and the West, with Germany being a major participant, has now
reached a dead end – there is nothing of substance left to discuss. All the talk about
common values, which has been a focal point ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has
accomplished nothing. Back then it was believed that the whole of Europe, including Russia, was
a space of shared values that rested on the foundation of Western liberalism.
Since the 1990s, Russia has been publicly accused of departing from these values, which was
interpreted as evidence that Russia is, overall, unprepared for meaningful cooperation with the
rest of Europe. There are various assessments of the changes Russian politics has undergone in
this period, but it is apparent that it has moved away from the ideological commitments of 30
years ago. And Russia will not go back to them: not just because its own evolution as a state
has made this impossible, but because the old value system is growing obsolete and is no longer
perceived as universal.
The world has entered a new era, where pluralism of morals and values is becoming the new
normal, no matter how the European Union feels about it. International relations can no longer
be based on countries demanding their partners to conform to a certain set of values.
In this respect, Russia would gladly return to the time when internal political mechanisms
of individual states were not brought up as talking points in negotiations with their foreign
partners. Ideally, Russia would want to go back to the start of the Ostpolitik era – the
first half of the 1970s, before the Helsinki Accords and its "third basket" provisions,
which made respecting human rights and freedoms an integral part of all international
discussions. Back then, it was unthinkable for an expensive and strategically important
project, such as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, to be jeopardized because of the personal history
of a single political figure – no matter how well regarded he is by Western
leaders.
For 30 years after the end of the Cold War, relations between Russia and the West have been
determined (to a lesser and lesser extent with every passing year) by the principles
established during the confrontation period – principles that were to be transformed into
a new form of international cooperation. However, this project has been abandoned, as have been
all attempts to adapt international institutions created in the second half of the 20th century
to the realities of the 21st century.
Stability and cooperation in the late Cold War period were dictated primarily by the need to
strengthen global security and prevent open confrontation. This was perceived as an absolute
priority. Today, Russia and the West no longer attach such importance to their relations
(although the perception persisted for a time, on both sides, even after the Cold War).
The EU is now busy dealing with its own issues. The United States also has problems to tend
to at home, on top of its efforts to contain China. Thus, Russia needs to redefine its
priorities and work out a proper new model of international relations – one that would
have Asia at the center and China as Russia's new key partner.
Simplified, the model of Russian-German relations in 2020 looks like this: Germany, as the
de-facto leader of the EU, no longer views promoting the 'European model' eastward as a
priority. And Russia, which had long viewed its relationship with Western Europe as
intrinsically valuable, has ceased to do so and is seeking closer cooperation with the nations
of Asia.
So, the specific circumstances that brought about the current crisis are just the trigger,
not the underlying causes of the change. Russia and the West are growing increasingly apart in
terms of their priorities. This is happening for objective reasons, but is also compounded by
subjective perceptions.
All of this does not mean, however, that the trend cannot be reversed. Russia, as the
largest country in Eurasia and a bearer of European culture, and Germany, as the strongest
European economy and a country that will have to redefine its identity in the coming years,
will have need of each other again, some day. But this cannot happen until a new world order is
fully formed – one that has little in common with the ways of the last century. The
notion of Ostpolitik was an integral part of the old model, and as one faded away into the
past, the other followed.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Annoying Russians with a destroyer 10 miles or so from Vladivostok under good old Trump.
Apparently, after a series of moves that replaced some top figures in Pentagon. The
relationship with Russia, under Trump, is fully under control of Kaganate of Nulandia, or
whatever we see on the top of that iceberg -- and try to make a search what it would take to
change the course of an iceberg from Antarctics (people were investigating it as a way of
bringing fresh water to Arabian peninsula where money is plentiful but water is scarce).
There are two important aspects there. Local trade is more profitable than distant trade
when consider in totality, i.e. including the products that you would never make profit after
crossing oceans. Second aspect is that Far East is a cultural zone like Europe -- lots of
animosities collected over centuries, but even more commonalities in culture. As USA imposes
various types of tribute on allies/vassals, centripetal forces in various continents should
increase. Among visible costs of vassaldom:
1. paying costs of American presence
2. annoying China beyond the national needs, thus decreasing the national security
3. participating in sanctions imposed by USA, directly and indirectly (through resulting
conflicts) reducing profits in economies that are struggling
Throughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign
policy, claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray. "Donald Trump's
brand of America First has too often led to America alone," Biden proclaimed.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called for making America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American
Empire Great Again .
Joe Biden: "Tonight, the whole world is watching America. And I believe at our best, America
is a beacon for the globe. We will lead not only by the example of our power, but by the power
of our example."
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
"It's long past time we end the forever wars which have cost us untold blood and treasure,"
Biden has said.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will delegate that duty to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic Party and ideologues of permanent war .
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war dating back to the Bill Clinton
administration.
During the Trump era, they've cashed in through WestExec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for Secretary of Defense and Blinken is expected to be the
president's National Security Advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ivFFZ95EQvY
This video report was originally published at Behind The Headlines .
Support the independent journalism initiative here .
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President Bush
is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction."
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war . The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the
world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using
it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS). CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms
manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big
banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon. She was keenly aware that the
public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, she crafted a new
concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state while giving the appearance of a
drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program. This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called
for the U.S. to be able to simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare,
clandestine weapons transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all
buttressed with propaganda campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and
corporate news media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban: "We are beginning to regain the initiative and the insurgency is
beginning to lose momentum."
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future: "We are not leaving any time soon even though the nature and the complexion of the
commitment may change over time."
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal: "I would certainly not advocate a US or NATO departure
short of a political settlement being in place."
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
Michele Flournoy: "If we are fortunate enough to see a political settlement reached, it
doesn't mean that the US role or the international community is over. Afghanistan without
outside investment is not a society that is going to survive and thrive. In no case are we
going to be able to wash our hands of Afghanistan and walk away nor should we want to. This is
something where we're going to have to continue to be engaged, just the form of engagement may
change."
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an elaborate propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
Fox News: "Susan Rice reportedly told a security council meeting that Libyan troops are
being given viagra and are engaging in sexual violence."
MSNBC jumped on the propaganda bandwagon, claiming: "New reports emerge that the LIbyan
dictator gave soldiers viagra-type pills to rape women who are opposed to the government."
So did CNN.
As the Libyan ambassador to the US alleged "raping, killing, mass graves," ICC Chief
Prosecutor Manuel Ocampo claimed: "It's like a machete. Viagra is a tool of massive rapes."
All of this was based on a report
from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by the Qatari monarchy that was arming
extremist militias in Libya to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war: "I supported the
intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think we were right to do it."
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Tony Blinken: "We are doing this in a very different way than in the past. We're not sending
in hundreds of thousands of American troops. We're not spending trillions of American dollars.
We're being smart about this. This is a sustainable way to get at the terrorists and it's also
a more effective way."
Blinken added: "This is not open-ended, this is not boots on the ground, this is not Iraq,
it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Libya. The more people understand that, the more they'll
understand the need for us to take this limited but effective action ."
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine.
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted: "So I can not tell you that we had evidence even though we had a
lot of media and social media indicators that either chlorine or sarin were used ."
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Tony Blinken: "We're working, as I said, to make sure that there's a cost exacted of Russia
and indeed that it feels the pressure. That's what we're working on. And when it comes to
military assistance, we're looking at it. The facts are these: Even if assistance were to go to
Ukraine that would be very unlikely to change Russia's calculus or prevent an invasion."
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
But Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fueled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift called
the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S. used to
maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities,
development of futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones,
hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence
making unimaginably complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind.
All of this would be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley
giants that it birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation .
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia: "That technological investment is still very important for
the United States to be able to offset what will be quantitative advantages and home theater
advantages for a country like China if we ever had to deal with a conflict in Asia, in their
backyard."
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea . Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia , a position Flournoy shares: "We need to invest to ensure that we
maintain the military edge that we will need in certain critical areas like cyber and
electronic warfare and precision strike, to again underwrite deterrence, to make sure Vladimir
Putin does not miscalculate and think that he can cross a border into Europe or cross a border
and threaten us militarily."
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast: "Large scale, open-ended
deployment of large standing US forces in conflict zones with no clear strategy should end and
will end under his watch . But we also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless
wars with the large scale open ended deployment of US forces with, for example, discreet,
small-scale sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces, to support local actors In
ending the endless wars I think we have to be careful to not paint with too broad a brush
stroke."
The end of forever wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the public
doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that, "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support; but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia .
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
In Central America, Biden
has presided over a four billion dollar package to support corrupt right-wing governments
and neoliberal privatization projects, fueling destabilization and sending vulnerable masses
fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy , escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
naughty.boy , 14 hours ago
deep state will bankrupt the USA with forever wars.
Distant_Star , 14 hours ago
Yes. As a bonus neither of these Deep State wretches has even seen a shot fired in anger.
They are too "important" to be at risk.
"What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal," Jeffrey said.
" ... even as he praises the president's support of what he describes as a successful
"realpolitik" approach to the region, he acknowledges that his team routinely misled senior
leaders about troop levels in Syria.
"We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we
had there," Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is "a
lot more than" the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.
Defense One
-------------
"We?" Who are "We?"
State Department people? Well, certainly some of those were involved.
But ... IMO it would not have been possible to deceive or mislead the WH and specifically
the Commander in Chief without the active cooperation of CENTCOM, the JCS and OSD.
If they had not been participating in the lying, it would have been obvious in any number of
interactions with President Trump that the president's understanding of troop numbers in Syria
was not correct and that he was being deceived by "we." (whoever that was). That revelation
evidently did not happen. The NSC staff should have detected the lack of truth in reported
numbers. That it did not tells me that at least some of the NSC staff were disloyal to Trump.
Obvious? Yes, but that is worth re-stating.
James Jeffrey is quite proud of his achievement in maintaining a "realpolik" stalemate in
Syria, one that stymies both Russia and the Syrian government.
IMO opinion he is revealed by his own words as a treacherous back stabber. "Un hombre
sin honor." pl
This is exactly the result of Trump's lack of interest in fulfilling his original promise
of ending the "forever wars" in the middle east. This is exactly the result of putting
opelny-Democrat Jared Kushner (a lifelong member of Chabad-Lubavich network) and his ilk in
charge of the middle east geopolitics.
It also clearly proves that the State Dep. is a monsterous autonomous entity with its own
permanent objectives and agendas, independent of the WH. No matter what Trump wanted to
achieve in the ME, the so-called Blob (or as Col. Lang here has coined as the "BORG") do what
they will. You have to also remember that back in '17, career diplomats and high-ranking
State Dep. officials sounded the alarm that Rex Tillerson was down-sizing the Department so
much and that it was contrary to American interests abroad etc...fast forward to today, it
would not have mattered how much down-sizing Tillerson actually managed to do, they (people
like Jeffries) were still able to pursue their own agenda and undermine Trump's original
promise of ending the forever wars in the middle east.
The liberal elites managed to 'allegedly' manipulate the election against a sitting
president in favor of an highly unappealing candidate in Joe Biden. In all honesty, does
anyone think the Blob/Borg would NOT undermine the president's agenda and follow their own
permanent objectives aboard?
Trump should be furious about this. He should be firing everyone involved in the
deception. Those involved don't belong in ANY administration. Was convincing Trump that he
was getting the Syrian oil part of this despicable con? As you mentioned last night, this
deception is probably also going on in Afghanistan. This is a clear sign of a totally
dysfunctional nation security apparatus... Trump's national security apparatus. Could Trump
find no one he could trust to carry out his orders? Or did he just not even care? He
certainly wasn't up to the task.
However, our troop level in Syria has been widely and openly reported to be above the 200
level since Trump's initial announcement of a total pull out in December 2018. I thought it
was odd when shortly after that it was announced that more troops were being sent in to
facilitate the withdrawal of the 2,000 plus troops already there. We did reduce the level
somewhat, but then we brought in mech infantry with their Bradleys to secure the oil fields
and later more to counter the Russian patrols in northeast Syria. And isn't counting whatever
we have in Tanf.
"He should be firing everyone involved in the deception"
He just fired Esper. "Trump's national security apparatus." You mean America's natonal
security apparatus, the one that gave us LTC Vindman and that crew of Ambassadors, and the
'whistlebolower' Chief Justice Robert's wouldn't let any senator name nor ask questions about
during the impeachment. You remember all that don't you? I'm sure the same cast of characters
Biden would bring back if he succeeds in the rigged election would never do that to him.
COL(R) Mark Mitchell stated the following recently, regarding the duties and
responsibilities of the SECDEF in response to POTUS directives. The comments were in regard
to Acting SECDEF Miller (a longtime friend and colleague of Mitchell), but apply to any
Cabinet or sub-Cabinet post:
"He [POTUS] may make decisions that other people disagree with. They have two options:
they can do what he directs them to do, or after they've offered their advice, if they find
it illegal, immoral, unethical, unadvisable, they can step down," retired Col. Mark Mitchell,
who most recently served in the Pentagon as the principal deputy assistant defense secretary
for special operations/low-intensity conflict.
Mitchell added that he resented the implication at the defense secretary should be
expected to stand up to the president, or in his way, as the duly elected commander in
chief.
"You either carry out your lawful orders or you resign," he said. "We don't get the option
to 'stand up to him.' "(End of quote)
Unfortunately, President Trump made many poor personnel decisions, and selected people who
believed they had the duty and right to work against the President from within the
Administration. This has driven me nuts for the last four years, as I have watched senior
civilian and uniformed leaders actively undermining the Commander-in-Chief. They weren't
subtle about it. For whatever reason, they mostly got away with it.
To be clear, I am not writing this as a Trump supporter. As a career military
professional, I have a duty to support the Commander-in-Chief, and obey lawful orders from
the Commander-in-Chief.
It is very easy to play shell games with the BOG caps in the war zones.
Looking forward to a reprise of Trump's former starring role in The Apprentice, and
finally uttering yet again his immortal words: You're Fired!
The final days of Trump's first term are going to be awesome. Banish the Borg. BAMN. Put
Biden's fingerprints on any re-hiring.
Typically a new CEO will ask for everyone's resignation, and select and cull according to
new needs and new directions. Something Trump should have done, but he too was the apprentice
in this office when his term began.
Nothing to stop Trump from doing this now in reverse, and finally cleaning out the dross
that was dedicated to his administration's destruction. Better late than never. Our country
deserves nothing less. These insider traitors deserve to have their termination for cause
permanently be part in their career resumes.
It appears that POTUS Trump once his re-election is affirmed, urgently needs to fire a
large percentage of top-level ranks at the Pentagon, fire the CENTCOM CC and his staff, fire
the JCS, close down the NSC until it's thoroughly bleached, and charge all of them under the
UCMJ. Bust them down to slick-sleeves and show them the door. How many back-stabbing Vindman
types remain within the NSC? They need to be fired and prosecuted under the UCMJ as well.
As a citizen I am having great difficulty not concluding that the US is showing all the
signs of decline like the late Roman Republic.
James Jeffrey along with the rest of the herd that have run one agitprop disinformation
scheme after another since the 2016 election are like the roman senators that had the intent
to save the Republic but fatally weakened it by killing Caesar at its very center, in the
Senate.
Biden's people are openly calling for even more internet censorship and continuing to rush
out inherently dangerous mRNA vaccines without proper testing - and may force us to take it.
Groups are starting to create a database of Trump supporters to enable censoring them where
they work and live - what is this other than terrorism against half the voting population? If
just five percent of the 70M that voted for Trump moves together in resistance then the new
regime herd will be holding a tiger by is tail and with the election showing the people are
split right down the middle I fail to see how we can avoid even much worse chaos the next
four years. The American Republic is disintegrating while the herd is having a romp and
thinks it is winning while they are its assassins.
I am sick at heart of this and fear for the future of my children whose standard of living
opportunities are in free-fall.
We are shocked, SHOCKED! that military bureaucrats are acting in the same ways that they
always have. Come on now. The job of president is to get all these people to work in concert
to an extent adequate for getting things to come out mostly in our favor. None of this is
unique to Trump. Nearly every president in my lifetime has had to learn to deal with these
aspects of the military. Jimmy Carter trusted them to plan a rescue mission. They used navy
pilots for a mission over the desert! With no extra to enable adaptation to events! Ronald
Reagan sent a battleship to Lebanon and then found out the brass wouldn't take the risk of
actually using it for anything. Not to mention the superbly uncoordinated near simultaneous
invasion of Grenada. John Kennedy accepted a duplicitous projection of events for the bay of
pigs. Bill Clinton got caught in Somalia. George W. got sucked into a strategically unplanned
invasion of Iraq. Obama was told that an 18-month escalation would resolve Afghanistan. He
believed it! Boy were they shocked when he actually enforced the deadline. This is not a
criticism of any of those presidents. It is normal, however bizarre that may sound. My point
is that they mostly get bit once and learn not to trust the military's own estimates of what
they can or should do. Then they begin to do the job more adequately. They learn to pay
attention to goals and to manage their resources. Trump does not seem capable of this kind of
learning. The last months of an administration are not the time to suddenly discover the
nature of the organizations you are leading. And in any case, there is no time left for
learning how to get actual results.
JFK never should have unionized the government workforce.
Pits existential self-interests against patriotic national interest, should these
interests become in conflict. FDR warned against doing this. More attention needs to be paid
to this fundamental national turning point.
What ills were cured by this act (EO) and has the cure become worse than the perceived
disease. Must like term limits in California - the cure was 100 times worse than the original
disease.
Entrenched political personalities come and go; entrenched and corrupted political systems
are forever, because in the process they learned to self-perpetuate.
Name your favorite EO to strike down with an counter-mand EO, before a sitting president
leaves office:
1. Anchor baby citizenship triggering chain migration
2. Unionized government workforce
1. Use Democrat's standard politics of personal destruction to attack and harass any Trump
appointments; make working for the Trump administration so undesirable none dare even ask for
consideration.
2. Tie up the President's time with endless personal attacks, lies and investigations, so
Trump has no time as elected Chief Executive to oversee and clean up valid government
operations;
3. Take advantage of Trump's exclusively private sector experience to lull Trump into
thinking entrenched government BORGs are loyal government employees, who serve only to help
Trump carry out his Executive Office duties;
4. Leak like crazy; make things up if necessary that ensure the Trump administration
narrative appears chaotic and dysfunctional. Claim anonymous sources that undermine positive
functioning within Trump administration. Make everyone suspicious of everyone else.
5. Obliterate any recognition for the remarkable Trump administration accomplishments that
occurred, regardless of all of the above.
6. Pout relentlessly because regardless of the above, the President and the GOP Senate
appointed over 200 new federal judge and 3 new SCOTUS members.
7. In full public view, tear up the SOTU address listing remarkable administration
accomplishments mouthing - these are all lies -- laying down the gauntlet for all out
war.
8. Gin up pandemic hysteria to fill in any and all loopholes not yet covered by all of the
above.
Democrat skullduggery may have effectively destroyed an temporal administration, but Trump
Judiciary appointments are the equivalent of a very welcomed forever.
President Trump, you are missed already. But I suspect in short order it is you, who will
not miss the office. You are enshrined forever - #45 as President of the United States of
America. History will treat you far kinder than your current fellow citizens.
You broke up the Democrat plantation. You exposed the dark underbelly of the body politic.
Mission accomplished. There is no going back.
this sounds like the definition of a traitor to me - jeffery.... on the other hand one
could say he is working for wall st and the mil complex and has done a good job... which is
it??
I don't understand this. Trump is the Commander in Chief, at any time he could have asked
a straight-up question: How. Many. Troops. Do. We. Still. Have. In. Syria?
I find it astonishing that the military leadership would tell a lie to their Commander in
Chief when the question itself leaves no wriggle-room.
Heck, Trump could has asked for a list of every single one of those brave 200 boys, and
even if it included Name, Rank, and Serial Number that would still fit on a single
letter-sized printout.
I can't understand how Jeffrey's and his band of "we's" could get away with this unless
Trump wasn't paying any attention at all.
Russia has consistently stressed its willingness to work with either candidate -- late last
month, the Kremlin's press secretary Dmitri Peskov rebuffed suggestions that Moscow prefers the
incumbent: "it would be wrong to say that Trump is more attractive to us."
But Russia's political commentary sphere has proven more polarized. Some cite
Biden's readiness to extend the New START treaty without additional conditions as evidence that
Biden is someone that the Kremlin can do business with; others have expressed concern over the
Democratic candidate's "Russophobic" cabinet picks and predict that, under a Biden presidency,
Washington's policy of rollback will escalate to an unprecedented level. But there is also an
overarching belief that Washington's Russia policy is so deeply embedded across U.S.
institutions that not much is likely to change in U.S.-Russian relations.
As Peskov put it, "there is a fixed place on the altar of US domestic policy for hatred of
Russia and a Russophobic approach to bilateral relations with Moscow." Still other commentators
are interested in the process as much as the outcome, drawing attention to ongoing mass unrest and
allegations of electoral misconduct in order to argue that Washington has forfeited its moral
authority to lecture others on proper democratic procedure and the orderly transition of
power.
I would also add Bolton to complete the list of crazy-hawk Trump appointees.
While some credit is due to Trump not starting any wars, I have to think it was
unintentional on Trump's part, as evidenced by the same list of ultra aggressive foreign
policy advisors he appointed.
More likely, the subpar crop of new wars was the result of the foreign policy apparatus
refusing to give his administration the authority to launch any original policy of their own.
Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Syria were continuations of existing policy, and sponsored by
"respected" interests (respectively: by the Oil Industry, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and all of
the above).
The biggest foreign policy initiative of all, cold war with China, is a long term
bipartisan project.
RSH's warning that Trump could still start a war should be taken very seriously. Trump has
vowed that he will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Will he leave office without
ENSURING that they cannot?
I don't think for a minute think that Zionist Biden will do anything to upset Israel. But
the election of Biden is a convenient excuse for Trump to start a war (probably based on a
false flag of some sort) that Biden (or Kamala-Hillary) will "inherit".
@ pnyx #43 . . .on Biden. Just think of the warmongering role he played for the Iraq war. The Neocons
would have an easier time with Biden than with Tronald
Yes. Biden is a Clintonite, Trump was anti-Clinton.
The US war in Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom - with its death, destruction and displacement
has been rightly called the worst US foreign policy move ever.
The Clintons started it, and then promoted it with Biden's assistance as Chair of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee.
President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton announces he has ordered air strikes against
Iraq because it refused to cooperate with United Nations (U.N.) weapons inspectors.
Trump's foreign policies were remarkably different? How? He assassinated an Iranian
general, which nearly had the US enter into a hot war with Iran, bombed Syria twice, put
additional sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, Russia and the DPRK. Trump's State Department has
successfully enacted regime change in Zimbabwe, Sudan, El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Bolivia
(Mike Pompeo congratulating Luis Arce on his win -- very suspicious), and is trying regime
change in Hong Kong, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, Eritrea, and Zimbabwe again, and as
of late, Nigeria.
You could argue that Trump wants Iran to be somewhat stronger so he can sell more weapons
to his MIC buddies and profit that way, therefore he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, and
the weapons import/export sanctions on Iran expired. But that's a different and more brash
method of managing Empire. It's different from Biden's "strategic de-escalation" policy with
Iran via the Iran nuclear deal, but not that one that necessarily yields better results for
Iran in the long term.
Calm down folks, the elected officials in the US have been puppets of the elite for the
entire history of the country.
The problem we're facing is within the elite community and far above any government's
control.
They didn't legalize drone striking "terrorists" any where on the globe by accident.
This means the elite are terrified of the fact that the internet and Trump both have exposed
them for the morally bankrupt, greedy, mass murdering psychopaths they truly are.
The accidental presidency of Trump made them realize that their useful idiots(elected
officials) where more idiots than useful and that they had to use the state sponsored
monopolies in the press as well as their privately controlled publicly funded covert
community to steer the narrative away from actual reality into their alternative commoditized
version of reality.
Trump was never trying to defend America from the elite for the common man. He was trying
to exploit the elite who had rejected him and his father for decades as well as cash in on
their predicament in order to pay off his debts and start his own reality TV network.
I agree Trump was useful and informative but in the end he, like us is just along for the
ride.
Don't do anything rash and don't for one second think a regime change in America is a rare
occurrence. Remember the Kennedy's ?
The only way to win is to not become one of the elite's useful idiots by lashing out
against another citizen. Poor and middle class only get the illusion they help decide
policy.
The policy is decided and auctioned off within the billionaire funded think tanks and sent to
the useful idiots in DC to be rubber stamped in order to trick you into thinking the
legislative branch is legitimate. These people could f*ck up a two car parade and prove it
over and over again.
Stay sane folks, the motives haven't changed in centuries and the elite are far more
scared of us than they are the other elite's because they all know they're all cowards.
In addition, considering Trump was supposedly a Russian puppet, Congress under his admin
passed a bill which allowed the US to arm Ukraine against Russia even more.
Wonderful and thought provoking analysis of current political affairs b. However I would
like to add that Biden and Trump are the products of political trends that have deep roots in
modern US and world political affairs that have been ongoing for some 100 years or more.
Biden and Trump did not occur in a vacuum. Both are products of the two world wars that were
fought in the last century. More recently, the US since 1940 and continuing to the present
day, has been actively preparing or fighting a major war somewhere on this planet. This
development has in turn created a vast military and civilian bureaucracy that constantly
needs to be fed a diet of real or imagined threats in order to survive.
The world recognizes what U.S. elites don't: the utter, total American failure to contain
Covid-19 has damaged U.S. standing and will do so until the virus is controlled. Meanwhile,
regional powers, China and Russia, cooperate and share resources, particularly vaccines. Cuba
provides treatments, but the U.S. turns up its nose at Cuban medicine, even if it means more
American covid patients die – this, though Cuba's pharmacopeia for this plague appears
superior. China sends doctors and medicines across the globe. Russia opts for sane herd
immunity – through vaccination. These countries act like adults. Not a good look for the
U.S.
The Obama regime's deplorable trade and military "pivot to China," along with its sanctions
against high-ranking Russians and Russian energy, financial and defense firms and the Trump
regime's provocations, sanctions and insults aimed at both countries have now born fruit: There
is talk of a military alliance between China and Russia. Both countries deny that such is in
the offing, but the fact that it is even discussed reveals how effectively U.S. foreign policy
has created enemies and united them. Even if they would have drawn closer anyway, China and
Russia cannot ignore the advantage of teaming up in the face of U.S. hostility. A more idiotic
approach than this hostility is scarcely imaginable. Remember, not too long ago the U.S. had
little problem with its chief trading partner, China, and there were even reports some years
back of actual military cooperation in Syria between the U.S. and Russia. All that is gone now,
dissolved in a fog of deliberate ill-will.
So what are some of the absurd U.S. policies that have reaped this potential whirlwind? An
utterly unnecessary trade war with China, with tariffs that were paid, not by China, but by
importers and then passed on to American consumers. There is the Trump regime's assault on
China's technology sector and its attempt to lockout Huawei from the 5G bonanza. Then there are
the attacks on Russian business, like its deal to sell natural gas to Germany, attacks in which
the U.S. insists Germany buy the much more expensive U.S. product to avoid becoming beholden to
Russia. And of course, there are the constant mega-deals involving sales of U.S. weapons to
anyone who might oppose China, Russia, North Korea or Iran.
Aggravating these economic assaults, the U.S. navy aggressively patrols the South China Sea,
the Black Sea and more and more the Arctic Ocean, where Russia has already been since forever.
Russia has a lengthy Siberian coast, making U.S. talk of Russia's so-called aggressive posture
there just plain ludicrous. And now a NATO ally, Turkey, stirs the pot by egging on Azerbaijan
in its war against Armenia, which has a defense treaty with Russia. Azerbaijan is famous for
the oil fields of Baku.
Never has it been clearer that the U.S. deploys its military might to advance its
corporations' interests, international law be damned. As General Smedley Butler wrote of his
military service way back in the early 20 th century, he was "a high-class muscle
man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster
for capitalism. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make
Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank Boys to collect revenues in," and on
and on. Nothing has changed since them. It's only gotten worse. Indeed now we're in a position
where it is Russia that abides by international law, while the U.S. flouts it, instead
following something bogus it calls the "rules of the liberal international order."
The biggest and most consequential U.S. foreign policy failure involves nuclear weapons.
Here the Trump regime has outdone all its predecessors. It withdrew the U.S. from the
Intermediate Range Nuclear treaty, which banned land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles
and certain missile launchers and which it first signed in 1987. It withdrew from the Open
Skies Treaty, inked in 1992. That agreement allowed aircraft to fly over the signatories'
territory to monitor missile installations.
Trump has also made clear he intends to deep-six the 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia,
which limits nuclear warheads, nuclear armed bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and
missile launchers. The Trump regime has made the ridiculous, treaty-killing demand that China
participate in START talks. Why should it? China has 300 nuclear missiles, on a par with
countries like the U.K. The U. S. and Russian have 6000 apiece. China's response? Sure we'll
join START, as soon as the U.S. cuts its arsenal to 300. Naturally that went over like a lead
balloon in Washington.
And now, lastly, the white house has urged nations that signed the Treaty on the Prohibition
of Nuclear Weapons – which just recently received formal UN ratification – to
withdraw their approval. The U.S. spouted doubletalk about the TPNW's dangers, in order to head
off international law banning nuclear weapons, just as it has banned – and thus
stigmatized – chemical weapons, cluster bombs and germ warfare. Doubtless the Trump
regime's panic over the TPNW derives from its desire to "keep all options on the table"
militarily, including the nuclear one.
What is the point here? To make the unthinkable thinkable, to make nuclear war easier to
happen. The Pentagon appears delighted. Periodically military bigwigs are quoted praising new
smaller nuclear missiles, developed not for deterrence, but for use. Indeed, scrapping
deterrence policy – which has, insofar as it posits no first use, arguably been the only
thing keeping humanity alive and the planet habitable since the dangerous dawn of the atomic
era – has long been the dream of Pentagon promoters of "small, smart nuclear weapons" for
"limited" nuclear wars. How these geniuses would control such a move from escalating into a
wider nuclear war and planetary holocaust is never mentioned.
Before he assumed office, Trump reportedly shocked his advisors by asking, if we have
nuclear weapons, why can't we use them? Only someone dangerously ignorant or profoundly lacking
in basic human morality could ask such a question. Only someone eager to ditch the
human-species-saving policy of no-first-strike nuclear deterrence but willing to risk nuclear
extinction could flirt with such madness. Later in his presidency, Trump asserted that he could
end the war in Afghanistan easily if he wanted, hinting that he meant nukes, but that he did
not incline toward murdering 10 million people. Well, thank God for this shred of humanity.
Some assume a Biden presidency would chart a different course, but they may be counting
their chickens before they're hatched. Biden has made very hostile noises about Russia, China
and North Korea and has surrounded himself with neo-con hawks. He has so far made no promise to
return to the nuclear negotiating table for anything other than START. Would he try to
resuscitate the INF and Open Skies treaties? Would he end Trump regime blather aimed at
scotching TPNW? Maybe. Or he may have imbibed so much anti-Russia and anti-China poison that
he, like Trump, sees the absence of treaties as a green light for nuclear aggression.
Biden's official Foreign Policy Plan says that he regards the purpose of nuclear weapons as
deterrence, thus endorsing this at best very flawed compromise for survival. That he,
apparently unlike Trump, abjures a nuclear first strike is a huge relief, but how long will it
last? The Pentagon has been very persuasive over many decades of center-right rule and there is
no reason to assume that it will suddenly adopt a hands-off policy with Biden just because he
favors nuclear deterrence. Some military-industrial-complex sachems regard the no-first-use
principle as a mistake. Also, remember, Obama okayed a trillion-dollar nuclear arms upgrade.
Biden was his vp. What about that? This is no minor, petty concern. Russia is armed to the
teeth with supersonic nuclear weapons and China has concluded from U.S. belligerence that it
better arm up too. We are in dangerous waters here. Let's hope they don't become
radioactive.
In Lavrov's interview with Kommersant which was mostly about the conflict between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, he was asked about the US Election and then about the dire state of
relations with the EU. Lavrov reiterates Russia's position:
"I repeat once again that Russia will respect the choice of the American people, and that
we are ready to establish constructive cooperation with the winner of the race for the White
House, regardless of his party affiliation. However, considering the current circumstances,
we realistically assess the prospects of bilateral cooperation and do not expect too much.
Anyhow, let's wait for the voting results. We don't have long to wait."
Yes, the interview was done prior to the vote counting anarchy. IMO, we can substitute the
Outlaw US Empire for the EU in Lavrov's answer about the current crisis in relations:
"Russia's relations with the European Union are in crisis – and it is not our fault.
The EU bureaucracy and individual member states are using any, even the most absurd, reasons
to enhance something they call 'containment' of Russia.
"New sanctions, illegitimate from the international law perspective, are being imposed.
Considering the number of sanctions imposed on our citizens under far-fetched pretexts, the
EU is second only to the United States. The European media continue a broad anti-Russia
campaign. In trade and economy, the Brussels bureaucracy is stepping up various protectionist
policies, violating WTO rules and introducing its openly politicised rules of the game as
they go.
"At the same time, we are being told that Russia can "earn" the right to have normal
relations with the EU by changing its behaviour. This cynicism is absolutely off the
scale."
Lavrov repeats it's up to the EU to alter its behavior:
"[O]ur European colleagues must clearly understand that any interaction is only possible
on an honest and equal basis and respect for each other's interests. We will not allow any
one-sided games here. There will be no unilateral goodwill gestures on our part. We still
hope that a rational approach and common sense will prevail, both in Brussels and in member
capitals. We are ready to wait for that as well."
Western hypocrisy revealed 10 years after the event in today's Independent:
"Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence" . And they go on and on about those wicked,
evil Russians and their tyrannical leader causing death and destruction Syria by their
"support" of the Assad government whilst the West arms the "freedom fighters" there.
The Australian parliament seems about to
approve a 'human rights' law that would establish the ability to exert arbitrary state power over individuals in other
countries who have been accused of human rights violations. Ironically, this law gives the accused no day in court, and no
chance to see charges or evidence, confront accusers, present a defence or have a ruling made by an authority other than the
prosecution.
The law is called a Magnitsky Act. Kimberley
Kitching, a Labor senator from Victoria, has given notice that she will introduce the bill in December. If it's like the other
Magnitsky Acts introduced in half a dozen countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, it will itself
violate human rights when it is weaponised to target international adversaries. How did Australia come to consider a law that
violates human rights? And how does it weaponise 'human rights' to target international adversaries? How come it isn't being
critically questioned by the media? How come it enjoys
bipartisan
support
? Here is the backstory Australians don't know. I call it the Browder Hoax.
In 1998 William Browder, an American
investor, gave up his passport to become British, which put him on the US Internal Revenue Service list of '
tax
expatriates
', as the United Kingdom, unlike the United States, doesn't tax profits on offshore holdings. This was
convenient because from the mid-1990s he invested in Russian shares, becoming, he says, the largest foreign holder of Russian
stocks. The shares were moved offshore to tax-free British Virgin Island
shells
.
In a 2007 scam involving collusive lawsuits
('You cheated me, you must pay'; 'Yes, I agree, I will pay'), Browder's shell companies claimed to the Russian Treasury that
they had to pay out all their 2006 profits and requested refunds of all taxes paid in 2006: $230 million. This was known as
the tax-refund fraud.
The victim of the scam was the Russian
Treasury, though Browder first lied to the
Financial
Times
that his companies had been targeted by crooked Russian officials who were after the companies' assets. This,
however, was rather unlikely, as the companies themselves were participants in the scam, and Browder later admitted in a US
federal court
deposition
that
his companies had no assets to go after.
Browder would then claim that the shells were
stolen by an unrelated criminal operation, but evidence raises questions about that. His trustee, HSBC (as confirmed by the
HSBC comptroller in US federal
court)
,
said in July 2007 that it needed $7 million for legal fees to recover stolen companies, but Browder wrote in his book he
didn't know that they were stolen till
October
of
that year.
Browder declares that his 'lawyer' Sergei
Magnitsky, hired in 2007 (and really his accountant since 1997), discovered the scam and was jailed because of it, and then
beaten to death when he wouldn't recant. However, Browder never provided evidence of this, and neither do Magnitsky's
pre-arrest
testimon
i
es
,
which list him as an auditor. In fact, the scam was first revealed in April 2008 by a Russian, Rimma
Starova
,
the figurehead director of a shell company that took over the companies, and reported in July by the
New
York Times
and the Russian paper
Vedomosti
.
Magnitsky didn't allude to it in testimony until October.
Magnitsky was
named
as
a fraud collaborator by the scam's operative, Viktor Markelov, in the Russian trial that sent Markelov to prison.
In fact, the whole Magnitsky hoax was
invented two years after the accountant's 2009 death (due to terrible prison medical care) when Browder needed to block the
Russians from using Interpol to arrest him and return him for trial over $100,000 in tax evasion (he falsely claimed that he
hired the disabled and invested locally) and illicit stock buys of Gazprom, the energy conglomerate whose share sales in
Russia were then restricted to Russian citizens (he used cut-out companies with nominee owners). Browder admitted the
'disabled' ruse in his US court deposition.
Browder's public statements to
Chatham
House
, London, and University of San Diego
Law
School
in the two years after Magnitsky's death said nothing about his being beaten. Browder invented the story that
Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards to promote the Magnitsky Act in the United States to block the Russians'
tax-evasion pursuit. The Physicians for Human Rights in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to whom he gave all his evidence,
contradicts
the
beating claim, but the 'attack' is nevertheless cited in the US law.
Thus the 2012 US 'Magnitsky Act', formally
known as the
Russia and Moldova
Jackson–Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act
2012, sanctioned dozens of Russians that Browder
said, without evidence, were responsible for the death of his claimed 'lawyer' -- that is, his accountant, Magnitsky. They were
low-level officials, tax investigators, court officers, and medical and prison staff. It was a stretch to say that
investigators looking into tax evasion overseen by an accountant were responsible for his death in detention.
In fact, the European Court of Human Rights
ruled
last
year that, 'The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion'. It said: 'The accusations were
based on documentary evidence relating to the payment of taxes by those companies and statements by several disabled persons
who had confessed to sham work for the two companies. One of them testified that he had been in contact with Mr Magnitskiy,
had received money from him and had assisted him in finding other sham employees. He also said that Mr Magnitskiy had told him
what to say if questioned by the authorities and had asked him to participate in a tax dispute as a witness'.
None of the targeted people were given a
chance to answer the charges. When former Interior Ministry tax investigator Pavel Karpov brought a defamation case in London
against Browder for accusing him of the murder of Magnitsky, the judge
ruled
that
he didn't have standing, because he didn't have a UK reputation to defend. However, the judge said there was no justification
for the charge. He said, 'nothing in this judgment is intended to suggest that, if the Defendants were to continue to publish
unjustified defamatory material about the Claimant, the Court would be powerless to act'. It was the only time any of the
targets had anything close to due process in a court of law.
The US act was expanded to sanction human
rights violators in any country of the world. Browder has had it passed in half a dozen countries, and is lobbying for an
Australian version. Putting Magnitsky's name on a law builds his wall against Russian justice. But the so-called 'human
rights' law has dangerous implications for the civil societies of democratic countries.
It violates due process of the law. People
accused of crimes in Australia have the right to hear the charges against them, to have evidence presented in court, to
challenge or refute the evidence and if found guilty to be punished according to law. Should people accused of crimes in
countries other than Australia be charged here while being denied those rights?
Michael McFaul, US ambassador to Russia from
2012 to 2014 and a friend of Browder's,
writes
in
his book
From Cold War to Hot Peace
that
before the Magnitsky Act the United States had already put Russians on a sanctions list. 'I was the one that ran that
decision-making process in the government. And we did that. And we don't need the Magnitsky Act to deny people visas to come
to the United States of America.' But, he said, Browder wanted a more public action: 'He said that wasn't good enough -- we
needed to do this publicly' -- with Magnitsky's name on the bill. McFaul went on:
'Bill and I had a philosophical
disagreement. I did not believe that the U.S. government should be able to seize individuals' private property without due
process. They should have the right to defend themselves in a court of law. Bill disagreed. He vowed to push on with his
campaign in Congress. I wished him luck'.
In fact, the Magnitsky Act is not about human
rights, which might have made the due-process issue salient. It is the weaponisation of human rights not only to benefit
Browder but to attack declared adversaries. The Magnitsky Acts are now added to an arsenal of sanctions that includes economic
sanctions against a country for 'crimes' attributed to their governments, though the crimes are not adjudicated by any
international tribunals, which would provide due process. Though the Magnitsky Act was devised by Browder to attack Russia,
Australian parliamentarians appear to be aiming it at China, which follows the United States' escalating campaign against that
nation. Most of the 160 witness
statements
filed
with the foreign affairs subcommittee considering the law came from invited witnesses attacking Beijing. Browder was one of a
handful invited to give live testimony. Critics of the bill were not. Later, former senior diplomat Tony Kevin was given a
chance to oppose the law in a
statement
and
a
hearing
.
In fact, the Australian parliament did its best to prevent critics of the proposed law from expressing their views even in
print. I filed an extensive comment exposing Browder's falsehoods that was largely
redacted
,
with links to documents
blocked
.
After I responded to a direct attack on me by
Browder, the subcommittee refused to post my response.
One must be careful about the models one
constructs. This law is aimed only at people in other countries, since Australian law guarantees due process to anyone charged
in Australia. How can Australia claim jurisdiction over crimes in other countries? Would it accept other countries claiming
jurisdiction over crimes alleged in Australia? This law would deprive people charged in other countries of rights enjoyed in
Australia. That challenges Australia's claims to be a country that honours the rule of law. In effect, the proposed law is not
aimed at people because they are human rights violators (such as some police in the United States or France) but because they
are political enemies (officials in Russia and Iran). This damages the legitimate worldwide human rights movement by allowing
targeted governments to dismiss charges as politically motivated. And in many cases, they would be right.
Beyond that, there may be another harmful
effect. Authoritarian right-wing political movements are growing in the world. Imagine what any of their governments could do
with a Star Chamber law bereft of due process that accuses and punishes political targets. They could say that they are just
copying the West. The precedent is poor. Back in 2001, George W. Bush's government pushed the UN General Assembly to
adopt
a resolution
requiring all member states to pass anti-terror laws, and this rapidly became an open invitation for various
regimes to bring in oppressive laws, with far-reaching consequences. The Magnitsky Act risks giving more tools to
authoritarian regimes.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.96fd96193cc66c3e11d4c5e4c7c7ec97.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Farena.org.au%2Fweaponising-human-rights-can-the-magnitsky-act-deny-due-process%2F&size=m&text=Weaponising%20Human%20Rights%3A%20Can%20the%20Magnitsky%20Act%20deny%20due%20process%3F%20%E2%80%93%20Arena&time=1604441826984&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Farena.org.au%2Fweaponising-human-rights-can-the-magnitsky-act-deny-due-process%2F&via=arenatweets
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
LUCY KOMISAR
Lucy Komisar is an investigative journalist
who writes about the secret underbelly of the global financial system -- offshore banking and corporate secrecy -- and its links
to corporate crime; tax evasion by the corporations and the very rich; empowerment of dictators and oligarchs; bribery and
corruption; drug and arms trafficking; and terrorism. She was the winner in 2010 of the Gerald Loeb, National Press Club,
Sigma Delta Chi, and National Headliner awards in the United States for her exposé of Ponzi-schemer Allen Stanford, which was
printed by the
Miami Herald
. The Loeb
award is America's the United States' most prestigious prize for financial journalism. @lucykomisar
There are now much stronger arguments to believe that both Harvard mafia players and Browder
were puppets of certain intelligence agencies.
Notable quotes:
"... Just how much this changed is partly witnessed in the life of bill browder - a person well known to most here... so, clearly russia made changes to try to protect itself from the encouraged kleptocracy that was in full swing in the early 1990s ..."
"... You mention Bill Browder. He is the grandson of Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA from 1930-1945. It is now freely admitted that Earl was always in the employ of the FBI. Bill simply continues the family business, which is Get Russia. The odds that Bill is an independent actor and is not working for .gov are same as odds that Easter Bunny is real. ..."
@ 26 eric... thanks... unfortunately it seems michael hudson hasn't really commented on
russia in any significant way unless one goes back 5 years or so... i wonder how things have
changed since?? here is a link to the articles that top up using russia as the search term -
https://michael-hudson.com/?s=russia
i enjoyed the paul craig roberts - michael hudson article from 2019 on pcr's website...
again, i am not informed enough to make an informed comment on pcr's conclusions from march
of 2019... he and however much of the article hudson contributed - might be exactly right,
especially in the conclusions of the 3rd to last paragraph in the article.. i don't know...
thanks for the ongoing conversation..
@ Jen | Oct 24 2020 23:04 utc | 29 / 31.. thanks jen.. i haven't been to marks website in
a long time! i recall moscow exile.. is he still posting their?? regarding central banks and
nabiullina the head of russias central bank... i am not sure how many know this but the
position of being the head of a central bank in any country is not a position that is decided
upon by the country itself, or at least not in any democratic way... and the country is
supposed to not get involved in the politics of it either as i understand it... instead these
people are suggested in some other way - not elected - and while they do have to work with
the political leadership - they can't be gotten rid of easily as i understand it.. i think a
lot of this has to do with the way the international institutions work and how if a country
wants to be a part of this same international system of money, they need to accept the
structure as it is opaquely set up as... thus the central banks are under specific guidelines
that they have to follow that comes from somewhere outside the actual country.... i would
love someone to correct me on all this, but it is my present understanding of how this
particular system works... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank
As for what happened in Russia during the breaking up of the USSR and the transition of
Russia during the 1990's - one could argue the agenda of the Harvard plan for Russia was to
exploit russia for it's resource rich territory and install people like Yletsin who would
happily go along with this madness..
Just how much this changed is partly witnessed in the life of bill browder - a person
well known to most here... so, clearly russia made changes to try to protect itself from the
encouraged kleptocracy that was in full swing in the early 1990s ... just how much they
have managed to ween themselves off private finance - i have no idea... it sounds like they
are in the same boat as the rest of the planet in being beholden to private finance....
Of course private verses public finance is a confusing topic that keeps on getting
revisited here at moa and for good reason... i don't really know how all this interfaces with
everything else.. i appreciate erics particular vantage and am curious to hear of others
viewpoint as well.. thanks jen.. i have some other comments to read now on this topic from
H.Schmatz @ 28
You mention Bill Browder. He is the grandson of Earl Browder, General Secretary of the
Communist Party USA from 1930-1945. It is now freely admitted that Earl was always in the
employ of the FBI. Bill simply continues the family business, which is Get Russia. The odds
that Bill is an independent actor and is not working for .gov are same as odds that Easter
Bunny is real.
@ old hippie... yes, i was aware of that - thanks.. if you haven't seen it yet - the movie
the Russian guy made on Browder is quite good - worth the watch, but i think you have to pay
for it now.. there was a time where you could watch it for free... yes indeed, the son worked
or works for the same folks as the father did...here is a link to the movie.. http://magnitskyact.com/
here is an interesting link that i found just looking for a link to the movie... if you
haven't watched the movie, this is a good start and covers it from a particular angle.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOx78CBq0Ck
Earl Browder was an interesting dude who led an interesting life..
I have not yet read the whole transcript of Putin´s long intervention in the Valdai
Discussion Club, and thus, I do not know how deep he went about last frenzy on "regime
change" intends in the post-Soviet space, but in case he did not put it clear enough,
background of the recent explosions of regime change intends in countries surrounding Russia
( Spoiler: it was all there in a 2019 Reand Corporation file...)
Tramp was essentially the President from military industrial complex and Israel lobby. So he was not played. That's naive. He
followed the instructions.
On March 20, 2018, President
Donald Trump
sat beside Saudi crown prince Muhammed bin Salman at the White House and lifted a giant map that said
Saudi weapons purchases would support jobs in "key" states -- including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio, all
of which were crucial to Trump's
2016 election victory
.
"Saudi Arabia has been a very great friend and a big purchaser of
equipment but if you look, in terms of dollars, $3 billion, $533 million, $525 million -- that's peanuts for you. You
should have increased it," Trump
said
to the prince, who was (and still is) overseeing a military campaign in Yemen that has deployed U.S. weaponry to commit
scores
of alleged war crimes.
Trump has used his job as commander-in-chief to be America's arms-dealer-in-chief
in a way no other president has since Dwight Eisenhower, as he prepared to leave the presidency, warned in early 1961
of the military-industrial complex's political influence. Trump's posture makes sense personally ― this is a man who
regularly
fantasizes
about violence, usually toward foreigners ― and he and his advisers see it as politically useful, too. The president
has repeatedly appeared at weapons production facilities in swing states,
promoted
the head of Lockheed Martin using White House resources, appointed defense industry employees to top government jobs
in an unprecedented way and expanded the Pentagon's budget to near-historic highs ― a guarantee of future income for
companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
Trump is "on steroids in terms of promoting arms sales for his own
political benefit," said William Hartung, a scholar at the Center for International Policy who has tracked the defense
industry for decades. "It's a targeted strategy to get benefits from workers in key states."
In courting the billion-dollar industry, Trump has trampled on moral
considerations about how buyers like the Saudis misuse American weapons, ethical concerns about conflicts of interest
and even part of his own political message, the deceptive
claim
that he is a peace candidate. He justifies his policy by citing job growth, but data from
Hartung
,
a prominent analyst, shows he exaggerates the impact. And Trump has made clear that a major motivation for his defense
strategy is the possible electoral benefit it could have.
Next month's election
will show if the bargain was worth it. As of now, it looks like Trump's bet didn't pay off
― for him, at least. Campaign contribution records, analysts in swing states and polls suggest arms dealers have given
the president no significant political boost. The defense contractors, meanwhile, are expected to
continue
getting richer, as they have in a dramatic
way
under Trump.
Playing Corporate Favorites
Trump has thrice chosen the person who decides how the Defense Department
spends its gigantic budget. Each time, he has tapped someone from a business that wants those Pentagon dollars. Mark
Esper, the current defense secretary, worked for Raytheon; his predecessor, Pat Shanahan, for Boeing; and Trump's first
appointee, Jim Mattis, for General Dynamics, which reappointed him to its board soon after he left the administration.
Of the senior officials serving under Esper, almost half have connections
to military contractors,
per
the Project on Government Oversight. The administration is now rapidly trying to fill more Pentagon jobs under the guidance
of a former Trump campaign worker, Foreign Policy magazine recently
revealed
― prioritizing political reasons and loyalty to Trump in choosing people who could help craft policy even under a
Joe Biden
presidency.
Such personnel choices are hugely important for defense companies'
profit margins and risk creating corruption or the impression of it. Watchdog groups argue Trump's handling of the hiring
process is more evidence that lawmakers and future presidents must institute rules to limit the reach of military contractors
and other special interests.
"Given the hundreds of conflicts of interest flouting the rule of
law in the
Trump administration
, certainly these issues have gotten that much more attention and are that much more salient
now than they were four years ago," said Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a nonpartisan
good-government group.
The theoretical dangers of Trump's approach became a reality last
year, when a former employee for the weapons producer Raytheon used his job at the State Department to advocate for a
rare emergency declaration allowing the Saudis and their partner the United Arab Emirates to buy $8 billion in arms ―
including $2 billion in Raytheon products ― despite congressional objections. As other department employees warned that
Saudi Arabia was defying U.S. pressure to behave less brutally in Yemen, former lobbyist Charles Faulkner led a unit
that urged Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
to give the kingdom more weapons. Pompeo
pushed
out Faulkner soon afterward, and earlier this year, the State Department's inspector general
criticized
the process behind the emergency declaration for the arms.
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
Red
Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention center
in Yemen on Sept. 1, 2019. The Saudis military campaign in Yemen has relied on U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged
war crimes.
Even Trump administration officials not clearly connected to the
defense industry have shown an interest in moves that benefit it. In 2017, White House economic advisor Peter Navarro
pressured
Republican lawmakers to permit exports to Saudi Arabia and Jared
Kushner, the president's counselor and son-in-law, personally
spoke
with Lockheed Martin's chief to iron out a sale to the kingdom, The New York Times found.
Subscribe to the Politics email.
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.
When Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion to develop medical supplies
as part of this year's
coronavirus
relief package, most of the money went to defense contractors for projects like jet engine parts instead,
a Washington Post investigation
showed
.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
"It's a very close relationship and there's no kind of sense that
they're supposed to be regulating these people," Hartung said. "It's more like they're allies, standing shoulder to shoulder."
Seeking Payback
In June 2019, Lockheed Martin announced that it would close a facility
that manufactures helicopters in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and employs more than 450 people. Days later, Trump tweeted
that he had asked the company's then-chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, to keep the plant open. And by July 10, Lockheed
said
it would do so ― attributing the decision to Trump.
The president has frequently claimed credit for jobs in the defense
industry, highlighting the impact on manufacturing in swing states rather than employees like Washington lobbyists, whose
numbers have also
grown
as he has expanded the Pentagon's budget. Lockheed has helped him in his messaging: In one instance in Wisconsin, Hewson
announced
she was adding at least 45 new positions at a plant directly after Trump spoke there, saying his tax cuts for corporations
made that possible.
Trump is pursuing a strategy that the arms industry uses to insulate
itself from political criticism. "They've reached their tentacles into every state and many congressional districts,"
Scherb of Common Cause said. That makes it hard for elected officials to question their operations or Pentagon spending
generally without looking like they are harming their local economy.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Democrat who represents Coatesville,
welcomed
Lockheed's change of course, though she warned, "This decision is a temporary reprieve. I am concerned that Lockheed
Martin and [its subsidiary] Sikorsky are playing politics with the livelihoods of people in my community."
The political benefit for Trump, though, remains in question, given
that as president he has a broad set of responsibilities and is judged in different ways.
"Do I think it's important to keep jobs? Absolutely," said Marcel
Groen, a former Pennsylvania Democratic party chair. "And I think we need to thank the congresswoman and thank the president
for it. But it doesn't change my views and I don't think it changes most people's in terms of the state of the nation."
With polls showing that Trump's disastrous response to the
health pandemic
dominates voters' thoughts and Biden sustaining a lead
in surveys of most swing states
, his argument on defense industry jobs seems like a minor factor in this election.
Hartung of the Center for International Policy drew a parallel to
President George H.W. Bush, who during his 1992 reelection campaign promoted plans for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia to purchase
fighter jets produced in Missouri and Texas. Bush
announced
the
decisions
at events at the General Dynamics facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and the McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis that made
the planes. That November, as Bill Clinton defeated him, he lost Missouri by the highest
margin
of any Republican in almost 30 years and won Texas by a slimmer
margin
than had become the norm for a GOP presidential candidate.
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
President
Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July 12,
2019. Trump does not appear to be winning his political bet that increased defense spending would help his political
fortunes.
Checking The Receipts
The defense industry can't control whether voters buy Trump's arguments
about his relationship with it. But it could, if it wanted to, try to help him politically in a more direct way: by donating
to his reelection campaign and allied efforts.
Yet arms manufacturers aren't reciprocating Trump's affection. A
HuffPost review of Federal Election Commission records showed that top figures and groups at major industry organizations
like the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association and at Lockheed, Trump's favorite
defense firm, are donating this cycle much as they normally do: giving to both sides of the political aisle, with a slight
preference to the party currently wielding the most power, which for now is Republicans. (The few notable exceptions
include the chairman of the NDIA's board, Arnold Punaro, who has given more than $58,000 to Trump and others in the GOP.)
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics
shows
that's the case for contributions from the next three biggest groups of defense industry donors after Lockheed's employees.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
One smaller defense company, AshBritt Environmental, did
donate
$500,000 to a political action committee supporting Trump ― prompting a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, which
noted that businesses that take federal dollars are not allowed to make campaign contributions. Its founder
told
ProPublica he meant to make a personal donation.
For weapons producers, backing both parties makes sense. The military
budget will have increased 29% under Trump by the end of the current fiscal year,
per
the White House Office of Management and Budget. Biden has
said
he doesn't see cuts as "inevitable" if he is elected, and his circle of advisers includes many from the national security
world who have worked closely with ― and in many cases worked for ― the defense industry.
And arms manufacturers are "busy pursuing their own interests" in
other ways, like trying to get a piece of additional government stimulus legislation, Hartung said ― an effort that's
underway as the Pentagon's inspector general
investigates
how defense contractors got so much of the first coronavirus relief package.
Meanwhile, defense contractors continue to have an outsize effect
on the way policies are designed in Washington through less political means. A recent report from the Center for International
Policy found that such companies have given at least $1 billion to the nation's most influential think tanks since 2014
― potentially spending taxpayer money to influence public opinion. They have also found less obvious ways to maintain
support from powerful people, like running the databases that many congressional offices use to connect with constituents,
Scherb of Common Cause said.
"This goes into a much bigger systemic issue about big money in politics
and the role of corporations versus the role of Americans," Scherb said.
Given its reach, the defense industry has little reason to appear
overtly partisan. Instead, it's projecting confidence despite the generally dreary state of the global economy: Boeing
CEO Dave Calhoun
has said
he expects similar approaches from either winner of the election,
arguing even greater Democratic control and the rise of less conventional lawmakers isn't a huge concern.
In short, whoever is in the White House, arms dealers tend to do
just fine.
Esper's speech demonstrates a confluence of policies, ideas, and funds that permeate
through the system, and are by no means unique to a single service, think tank, or
contractor.
First, Esper consistently situated his future expansion plans in a need to adapt to "an
era of great power competition." CNAS is one of the think tanks leading the charge in
highlighting the threat from Beijing.
They also received at least $8,946,000 from 2014-2019 from the U.S. government and
defense contractors, including over $7 million from defense contractors like Northrop
Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Huntington Ingalls, General Dynamics, and Boeing who would stand
to make billions if the 500-ship fleet were enacted.
It's all about the money. Foreign and domestic policy is always all about the money,
either directly or indirectly. Of course, the ultimate goal is power - or more precisely, the
ultimate goal is relief of the fear of death, which drives every single human's every action,
and only power can do that, and in this world only money can give you power (or so the
chimpanzees believe.)
"As this is so obvious one must ask what the real reason for the anti-Russian pressure
campaign is. What do those who argue for it foresee as its endpoint?"
The endpoint is to weaken Russia and sabotaging its economy. Less income through oil and
gas exports means less money for weapons, which affects Russia's operations beyond its
borders, less money for hospitals, education, welfare etc. increasing domestic instability
etc.
Diplomatically Russia is also weakened by having its reputation tarnished, regardless of
whether it deserves it or not.
In order to get to the King, the pieces standing in front of it must be either taken out
or moved out of the way. Sanctions, informational and economic warfare are the only available
pieces on the chess board, short of direct military confrontation.
The timing of the weapons
deals strongly suggests a calculated move by the Trump White House to deliberately
antagonize China. After all, the Republican president and his Democrat rival have been sparring
over which one is tougher towards Beijing. Riling up China would therefore play into President
Donald Trump's hawkish posturing.
With recent opinion polls showing Trump losing ground to Joe Biden only three weeks from the
ballot, it looks like the incumbent is throwing everything including the kitchen sink to boost
his re-election chances. Announcing sped-up troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, as well as a
touted nuclear arms agreement with Russia (dismissed by Moscow as overblown), seems to be part
of a last-gasp effort by the Trump campaign to scrape up votes.
But offensive weapons sales to Taiwan is taking electioneering to recklessly dangerous
levels. Trump may be betting that China will huff and puff and then a turn blind eye, thereby
permitting him to make political gain without any real damage done – like starting a
war.
It's more precarious than that. The Trump administration has been using Taiwan as a catspaw
against China for too long. The latest weapons deals being proposed are just part of a slew of
advanced armaments that the Trump White House has overseen in its determination to aggravate
Beijing.
The moves by the Trump administration to increase supply of offensive weapons systems to
Taiwan are unprecedented. Since Washington formally broke ties with Taiwan in 1979, as part of
its One China policy to placate Beijing's territorial claims, previous administrations have
limited arms sales to the breakaway island to "defensive" armaments.
Under Trump, however, Washington has signaled it is abandoning its One China
policy by explicitly moving towards supporting Taiwan and its separatist position. Selling
offensive missiles, torpedoes, anti-ship mines and F-16s to Taiwan over the past year alone
is letting China know that the US is threatening to back the island in an armed confrontation
with the mainland.
In recent months, the Trump administration has sent the most senior US officials on
high-profile
visits to Taiwan since 1979. Last month, Kelly Craft, the American ambassador to the UN,
declared support
for Taiwan to have official representation at the world body. Those high-level state
acknowledgements have coincided with Washington sending high-powered military forces
to the Taiwan Strait in the form of warships and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers.
These provocative moves have been met by China escalating its military forces in a show of
strength to underpin its self-declared right to retake Taiwan, which Beijing views as a
renegade state since the 1949 civil war when the defeated nationalist faction exiled there.
The anti-China hostility generated in Washington is a
bipartisan position adopted by Republicans and Democrats. That means the weapons sales
lined up by Trump for Taiwan will likely be voted through, no matter who wins the presidential
contest on November 3. There's also at least another four major arms packages
reportedly in the works due at a later stage.
The US foreign policy establishment and the Pentagon – as seen in several planning
documents over recent
years – have targeted China as a great power rival. The antagonism that Trump has
certainly lent his brash personality to is not going away even if he loses the election next
month.
Piling on weapons sales to Taiwan is not merely a reprehensible electioneering ploy which
Trump might cynically calculate benefits him. It is part of a growing dynamic of belligerence
out of Washington towards Beijing. Whether it's Trump or Biden sitting in the White House, that
doesn't alter the disastrous collision course that Washington is charting towards Beijing based
on the former's presumed imperialist prerogatives.
It's a foreboding sign of the times when China's President Xi Jinping this week
warned combat marines to be prepared for war in defense of the nation's sovereignty.
America's cowardly habit of beating up on other people for its own political ego trips
sooner or later goes too far. Washington messing around with China's sovereignty and national
security as seen with incorrigible and increasingly offensive weapons sales to Taiwan is
playing with fire. A fire that could be just one spark away.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The problem with American imperialism that like tiger it can't change its spots. In this
sense Trump vs Biden is false dilemma. "Bothe aare worse" as Stalin quipped on the other
occasion. Both still profess "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine at the expense of the standard of
living of the USA people (outside of top 10 or 20%)
The problem with Putin statement is that both candidates are marionette of more powerful
forces. Trump is a hostage of Izreal lobby, which in the USA are mostly consist of rabid
Russophobes (look art Schiff, Schumer and other members of this gang). Biden is a classic
neoliberal warmonger, much like Hillary was, who voted for Iraq war, contributed to color
revolution in Ukraine, and was instrumental in the conversion of Dems into the second war party.
So there is zero choice in the coming election unless you want to punish Trump for the betrayal
of his electorate, which probably is the oonly valid reason to vote for Biden in key states;
otherwise you san safely ignore the elections as youn; influence anythng. In a deep sense this is
a simply legitimization procedure for the role of the "Deep State", not so much real elections as
both cadidates were already vetted by neoliberal establishment
The key problem with voting for Bide is that this way you essentially legitimizing Obama
administration RussiaGate false flag operation. But as Putin said, chances for extending the
Start treaty might worse this self-betrayal.
Like much of the American public, the Russian public is no doubt weary of the prior couple
years of non-stop 'Russiagate' headlines and wild accusations out of Western press, which all
are now pretty much in complete agreement came to absolutely nothing. This is also why the
whole issue has been conspicuously dropped by the Biden campaign and as a talking point among
the Democrats, though in some corners there's been meek attempts to revive it, especially
related to claims of "expected" Kremlin interference in the impending presidential
election.
Apparently seeing in this an opportunity for some epic trolling, Russian President Vladimir
Putin in an interview with Rossiya 1 TV days ago said it was actually the Democratic Party and
the Communist Party which have most in common.
Putin was speaking in terms of historic Soviet communism in the recent interview (Wednesday)
detailed in Newsweek. "The Democratic Party is traditionally closer to the so-called liberal
values, closer to social democratic ideas," Putin began. "And it was from the social democratic
environment that the Communist Party evolved."
"After all, I was a member of the Soviet Communist Party for nearly 20 years" Putin added.
"I was a rank-and-file member, but it can be said that I believed in the party's ideas. I
still like many of these left-wing values. Equality and fraternity. What is bad about them?
In fact, they are akin to Christian values."
"Yes, they are difficult to implement, but they are very attractive, nevertheless. In
other words, this can be seen as an ideological basis for developing contacts with the
Democratic representative."
The Russian president also invoked that historically Russian communists in the Soviet era
would have been fully on board the Black Lives Matter movement and other civil rights related
causes. "So, this is something that can be seen, to a degree, as common values, if not a
unifying agent for us," the Russian president said. "People of my generation remember a time
when huge portraits of Angela Davis, a member of the U.S. Communist Party and an ardent fighter
for the rights of African Americans, were on view around the Soviet Union."
So there it is: Putin is saying his own personal ideological past could be a basis of
"shared values" with a Biden presidency, again, it what appears to be a sophisticated bit of
trolling that he knows Biden won't welcome one bit. Or let's call it a 'Russian endorsement
Putin style'. The Associated Press and others described it as Putin "hedging his bets",
however.
Another interesting part of the interview is where the Russian TV presenter asked Putin the
following question:
"The entire world is watching the final stage of the US presidential race. Much has
happened there, including things we could never imagine happening before but the one constant
in recent years is that your name is mentioned all the time," Zarubin said. "Moreover, during
the latest debates, which have provoked a public outcry, presidential candidate Biden called
candidate Trump 'Putin's puppy.'"
"Since they keep talking about you, I would like to ask a question which you probably will
not want to answer," the interviewer continued. "Nevertheless, here it is: Whose position in
this race, Trump's or Biden's, appeals to you more?"
And here's Putin's response:
"Everything that is happening in the United States is the result of the country's internal
political processes and problems," Putin said. "By the way, when anyone tries to humiliate or
insult the incumbent head of state, in this case in the context you have mentioned, this
actually enhances our prestige, because they are talking about our incredible influence and
power. In a way, it could be said that they are playing into our hands, as the saying
goes."
But on a more serious note Putin pointed out that contrary to the notion some level of
sympathy between the Trump administration and the Kremlin, much less the charge of "collusion",
it remains that US-Russia relations have reached a low-point in recent history under Trump. The
record bears this out.
Putin underscored that "the greatest number of various kinds of restrictions and sanctions
were introduced [against Russia] during the Trump presidency."
"Decisions on imposing new sanctions or expanding previous ones were made 46 times. The
incumbent's administration withdrew from the INF treaty. That was a very drastic step. After
2002, when the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM treaty, that was the second major
step. And I believe it is a big danger to international stability and security," Putin
explained.
"Now the US has announced the beginning of the procedure for withdrawing from the Open
Skies Treaty. We have good reason to be concerned about that, too. A number of our joint
projects, modest, but viable, have not been implemented – the business council project,
expert council, and so on," he concluded.
But then on Biden specifically Putin said that despite "rather sharp anti-Russian rhetoric"
from the Democratic nominee, it remains "Candidate Biden has said openly that he was ready to
extend the New START or to sign a new strategic offensive reductions treaty."
"This is already a very significant element of our potential future cooperation," Putin
added of a potential Biden presidency.
NATO seems to be trying to frighten Russia with maneuvers in Poland and B-52 flights over
the Ukraine and the Black Sea ( see here for a full analysis). As for the
Poles and Ukronazis, they apparently believe that the Russian bear covered himself in poop and
ran away at full speed.
What I am going to say next is not a secret, every military person who looked into this
issue knows and understands this: NATO, and I mean the combined power of all NATO member
states, simply does not have the hardware needed to wage a war against Russia in Europe. What
NATO does have is only sufficient to trigger a serious incident which might result in a
shooting war. But once this war starts, the chances of victory for NATO are exactly zero.
Why?
Well, for one thing, while coalitions of countries might give a thin veneer of political
legitimacy to a military action (in reality, only a UNSC resolution would), in purely military
terms you are much better off having a single national military. Not only that, but coalitions
are nothing but the expression of an often held delusion: the delusion that the little guy can
hide behind the back of the big guy. Poland's entire history can be summarized in this simple
principle: strike the weak and bootlick (or
even worse !) the powerful. In contrast, real military powers don't count on some other guy
doing the heavy lifting for them. They simply fight until they win.
Yes, the Europeans, being the cowards that they are, do believe that there is safety in
numbers. But each time these midgets gang up on Russia and start barking (or, to use Putin's
expression, start oinking ) all together, the Russians clearly
see that the Europeans are afraid. Otherwise, they would not constantly seek somebody to
protect them (even against a non-existing threat).
As a direct result of this delusion, NATO simply does not have the equivalent of the
First
Guard Tank Army in spite of the fact that NATO has a bigger population and much bigger
budgets than Russia. Such a tank Army is what it would take to fight a real war in Europe,
Russia has such an Army. NATO does not.
The other thing NATO does not have is a real integrated multi-layered air defense system.
Russia does.
Lastly, NATO has no hypersonic weapons. Russia does.
(According to President Trump, the US does have super-dooper " hydrosonic " weapons, but nobody really knows what that is
supposed to mean).
I would even argue that the comparatively smaller Belarusian military could make hamburger
meat of the roughly three times larger Polish armed forces in a very short time (unlike the
Poles, the Belarusian are excellent soldiers and they know that they are surrounded by hostile
countries on three sides).
As for the "armed forces" of the Baltic statelets, they are just a sad joke.
One more example: the Empire is now sending ships into the Black Sea as some kind of "show
of force". Yet, every military analyst out there knows that the Black Sea is a "Russian lake"
and that no matter how many ships the US or NATO sends into the Black Sea, their life
expectancy in case of a conflict would be measured in minutes.
There is a popular expression in Russia which, I submit, beautifully sums up the current
US/NATO doctrine: пугать ежа
голой
задницей , which can be translated as "
trying to scare a hedgehog with your naked bottom ".
The truth is that NATO military forces currently are all in very bad shape – all of
them, including the US – and that their only advantage over Russia is in numbers. But as
soon as you factor in training, command and control, the ability to operate with severely
degraded C3I capabilities, the average age of military hardware or morale – the Russian
armed forces are far ahead of the West.
Does anybody sincerely believe that a few B-52s and a few thousand soldiers from different
countries playing war in Poland will really scare the Russian generals?
But if not – why the threats?
My explanation is simple: the rulers of the Empire simply hope that the people in the West
will never find out how bad their current military posture really is, and they also know that
Russia will never attack first – so they simply pretend like they are still big, mighty
and relevant. This is made even easier by the fact that the Russians always downplay their real
capabilities (in sharp contrast to the West which always brags about "the best XYZ in the
world"). That, and the fact that nobody in the Western ruling classes wants to admit that the
game is over and that the Empire has collapsed.
... the Empire still refuses to deal with Russia in any other way except insults, bullying,
threats, accusations, sanctions, and constant sabre-rattling. This has never, and I mean never,
worked in the past, and it won't work in the future. But, apparently, NATO generals simply
cannot comprehend that insanity can be defined as " doing the same thing over and over
again, while hoping to achieve different results ".
Finally, I will conclude with a short mention of US politicians.
First, Trump. He now declares that the Russians stole the secret of hypersonic weapons from
Obama. This reminds me of how the Brits declared that Russia stole their vaccine against the
sars-cov-2 virus. But, if the Russians stole all that, why is it that ONLY Russia has deployed
hypersonic weapons (not the US) and ONLY Russia has both two vaccines and 2 actual treatments
(and not the UK)? For a good laugh, check out Andrei Martyanov's great column " Russia
Steal Everything ".
And then there is Nancy Pelosi who, apparently, is considering, yes, you guessed it –
yet another impeachment attempt against Trump? The charge this time? Exercising this
Presidential prerogative to nominate a successor to Ruth Ginsburg. Okay, Pelosi might be
senile, but she also is in deep denial if she thinks impeaching Trump is still a viable
project. Frankly? I think that she lost it.
In fact, I think that all the Dems have gone absolutely insane: they are now considering
packing both the Supreme Court and the Senate. The fact that doing so will destroy the US
political system does not seem to bother them in the least.
Conclusion: quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat !
We live in a world where facts or logic have simply become irrelevant and nobody cares about
such clearly outdated categories. We have elevated " doubleplusgoodthinking " into an art form. We
have also done away with the concepts of "proof" or "evidence" which we have replaced with
variations on the "highly likely" theme. We have also, for all practical purpose, jettisoned
the entire corpus of international law and replaced it with " rules-based
international order ". In fact, I can only agree with Chris Hedges who, in his superb book
the " Empire of
illusions " and of the "triumph of spectacle". He is absolutely correct: not only is this a
triumph of appearance over substance, and of ideology over reality, it is even the triumph of
self-destruction over self-preservation.
There is not big "master plan", no complex international conspiracy, no 5D chess. All we
have is yet another empire committing suicide and, like so many before this one, this suicide
is executed by this empire's ruling classes.
According to the updated Russian military doctrine, any missile fired at Russia would be
considered tipped with Nuclear war head. If so, with available Hypersonic weapons, a
significant portions of the Empire, including EU would be potentially turned to Radioactive
ash within 20 minutes. Does this register at the highest levels of the Empire? I surely
hope so.
"Trump doesn't even have the balls to go after the people who spied on him and tried to
remove him from office. This is actually the greatest political scandal in American
history, yet nothing will be done about it."
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office (they could've added
his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to the
impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all political
theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office ( they could've
added his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to
the impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all
political theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
We are talking about thee most brazen pack of hypocrites, but charging Trump with war
crimes with Obama, Bush, Clinton's, and Dick Cheney just standing around just might be a
bridge too far.
However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my
first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands
that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength."
And as we've seen all of it was a lie. Trump's whole campaign was a calculated
bait-and-switch fraud. In order to win the election the con man had to steal votes from antiwar
voters such as myself just the same as if he'd rigged voting machines.
Trump is a lying, mass-murdering, psychotic, psychopathic, traitorous, Israel-first,
America-last hard core militant zionist extremist.
Photograph Source: Bundesarchiv, B 145 Bild-P098967 – CC BY-SA 3.0 de
It is time for the United States to debate the downsizing, if not the dissolution, of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). U.S. national security would be strengthened by the
demise of NATO because Washington would no longer have to guarantee the security of 14 Central
and East European nations, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
European defense coordination and integration would be more manageable without the
participation of authoritarian governments in Poland and Hungary. Key West European nations
presumably would favor getting out from under the use of U.S. military power in the Balkans,
the Middle East, and Southwest Asia, which has made them feel as if they were "tins of shoe
polish for American boots."
Russia would obviously be a geopolitical winner in any weakening -- let alone the demise --
of NATO, but the fears of Russian military intervention outside of the Slavic community are
exaggerated. The East European and Baltic states would protest any weakening of NATO, but it
would be an incentive for them to increase their own security cooperation.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created seven decades ago as a political
and military alliance to "keep the United States in Europe; the Soviet Union out of Europe; and
Germany down in Europe." The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989; the Warsaw Pact and the East
European communist governments in 1990; and the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the high water mark
for the alliance.
For the past three decades, however, the United States has weakened NATO by forcing a
hurried and awkward expansion on the alliance. Most recently in 2020, North Macedonia was
admitted as its 30th member, further weakening the integrity of the alliance. Did President
Donald Trump actually believe that the presence of North Macedonia as well as 13 other Central
European states would strengthen U.S. security?
The enlargement of NATO demonstrated the strategic mishandling of Russia, which now finds
the United States and Russia in a rivalry reminiscent of the Cold War. President Bill Clinton
was responsible for bringing former members of the Warsaw Pact into NATO, starting in the
late-1990s; President George W. Bush introduced former republics of the Soviet Union in his
first term. German Chancellor Angela Merkel deserves credit for dissuading Bush from seeking
membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
The United States justified the expansion of NATO as a way to create more liberal,
democratic members, but this has not been the case for the East European members. Russia,
moreover, views the expansion as a return to containment and a threat to its national security.
Russia was angered by the expansion from the outset, particularly since President George H.W.
Bush and Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and Foreign
Minister Eduard Shevardnadze that the United States wouldn't "leap frog" over Germany if the
Soviets pulled their 380,000 troops out of East Germany.
NATO's success from 1949 to 1991 was marked by a common perception of the Soviet threat,
which is the key to solidarity in any alliance framework. In 2020, however, the 30 members of
NATO no longer share a common perception of the Russian threat in Europe. The United States has
one view of Russia; the key nations of West Europe have a more benign view; and the East
Europeans perceive a dire threat that the others do not share. The United States has always
expressed some dissatisfaction with the asymmetric burden sharing and risk sharing within the
alliance, and the Trump administration has threatened to withdraw from NATO over the burden
sharing issue.
Turkey has rapidly become the outlier within NATO, and there have been a series of
confrontations in the eastern Mediterranean that threaten the integrity of the alliance. Greek
and Turkish warships collided in August, creating the first such confrontation between the two
navies since 1996, when the Clinton administration mediated the problem. The United States no
longer acts in such diplomatic capacities, so French President Emmanuel Macron has stepped into
the breach by sending jet aircraft to the Greek island of Crete as well as warships to exercise
with the antiquated Greek navy. Greece and Turkey, which joined NATO together in 1952, are
rivals over economic zones in the Mediterranean where there are important deposits of oil and
natural gas. Greece and Turkey have squabbled since 1974 over the divided island of Cyprus.
Turkey and France have additional differences over Turkey's violations of the UN arms
embargo on Libya. The two NATO allies had a confrontation in the Mediterranean when a French
warship tried to inspect a Turkish vessel. Last week, France joined military exercises with
Greece and Italy in the eastern Mediterranean following a Turkish maritime violation of
contested waters. Paris backs Athens in the conflicting claims with Ankara over rights to
potential hydrocarbon resources on the continental shelf in the Mediterranean.
President Macron took a particularly tough line in stating that he was setting "red lines"
in the Mediterranean because the "Turks only consider and respect a red-line policy," adding
that he "did it in Syria" as well. Macron's tough stance is somewhat surprising in view of the
concern of France and other European NATO countries regarding Turkey's ability to turn on the
refugee spigot, which would cause economic problems in southern Europe. Turkey has been using
the refugee issue as leverage since 2015, when huge numbers of refugees in West Europe led to a
rightward shift in European politics.
There is also the problem of Turkey's purchase of the most sophisticated Russian air defense
system, the S-400, which was developed to counter the world's most sophisticated jet fighter,
the U.S. F-35. As a result of the purchase of the S-400 system, the United States reneged on
the sale of eight F-35s to Turkey at a loss of $862 million, creating additional problems
between Trump and Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey had planned to buy 100 F-35s
over the next several years, and had begun pilot training in the United States.
Trump's constant harangues about burden sharing have created more friction within NATO.
Trump falsely takes credit for increased European defense spending, but it was the Obama
administration that successfully arranged greater Canadian and European defense spending in
2014 in the wake of Russia's seizure of Crimea. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg panders
regularly to Trump on the issue of increased defense spending, ignoring Trump's false claims
that NATO spending will increase by $400 billion annually. The $400 billion is in fact the
increased spending over an eight-year period.
With Trump's drift toward isolationism and unilateralism ("America First"), there is
incentive for the European Community to take control of its own "autonomous" defense policy.
The Europeans have reason to believe that a second presidential term for Trump could lead to a
sudden U.S. withdrawal from NATO. The unilateralist character of U.S. foreign and defense
policy strengthens the case for building European defense cooperation along side of an
undetermined transatlantic relationship with the United States.
That's according to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who pointed out that US broadcaster
RFE/RL, which is openly state-run, and British outlet BBC are also financed from public
funds.
Two of Russia's broadcasters are facing open discrimination across their countries of
accreditation, Lavrov told Sputnik.
RT has been forced to register with the US Justice Department under the 1938 Foreign Agents
Registration Act (FARA). Its correspondents have also been barred from attending events hosted
by the French president; likewise, RT and Sputnik have faced enormous difficulties while
reporting from Baltic nations.
"We are being presented with the argument that there is state funding [for RT and
Sputnik]," Lavrov commented. Nevertheless, there are is media in the West – the BBC
and Radio Liberty being prime examples – that also receive government donations and
"are considered beacons of democracy."
They also rely on state funding, but for some reason no restrictive measures are being
taken against them, including through the internet, where censorship is now openly
introduced.
This comes as audiences of both broadcasters are growing and their popularity is on the
rise. "I saw the statistics; I can only assume that this is another sign of the fear of
competition on the side of those who dominated the global information market until
recently," the foreign minister said.
The pressure Western nations pile on Russian media is one reason to wonder if they actually
practice what they preach. Lavrov recalled that the West demanded Russia "open up to the
world" during the period of perestroika – including by allowing full access "to
any kind of information, whether it was based on domestic sources or came from abroad."
Thirty years later, the West is "already even embarrassed" to stick to the same
principles when Russia asks "that access to information be respected, including in France
with respect to Sputnik and RT," Lavrov stated. France has its own state-funded outlets,
such as AFP, Radio France International and France 24.
Double standards, hypocrisy – unfortunately, these are the words to describe
their position.
Russia will take these matters to the upcoming ministerial summit of the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) this December. "These questions will not
disappear anywhere from the agenda, our Western colleagues will have a lot to answer,"
Lavrov vowed.
Speaking about the pressure put on Russia in general – and often initiated by the
media and not among political circles – Lavrov described the current times as "the age
of social media, disinformation and fake news." It is fairly easy "to throw any
invention into the media domain" and get away with it, he said, adding, "and then no one
will read the rebuttal."
Crisis of neoliberal undermines the USA supremacy and the US elite hangs by the stras to the Full Specturm Domionanc edoctrine,
whih it now can't enforce and which is financially unsustainable for the USA.
Collapse of neoliberalism means the end of the USA supremacy and the whole political existence on the USA was banked on this
single card.
Notable quotes:
"... In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential," bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily. ..."
"... In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands, we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well. ..."
"... There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic opposition to communism. ..."
"... Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism. ..."
The international order is no longer bipolar, despite the elites' insistence otherwise.
Fortunately there is hope for change.
Despite its many failings and high human, social, and economic costs, American foreign
policy since the end of the Second World War has shown a remarkable degree of continuity and
inflexibility. This rather curious phenomenon is not limited to America alone. The North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment from Washington D.C. to London, which some have aptly
dubbed the "blob," has doggedly championed the grand strategic framework of "primacy" and armed
hegemony, often coated with more docile language such as "global leadership," "American
indispensability," and "strengthening the Western alliance."
In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian
Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In
fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when
it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential,"
bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily.
On the Left, and in the wake of
President Trump's election, the Democratic establishment began fixating its wrath on
Russia–adopting a confrontational stance toward Moscow and fueling fears of a renewed
Cold War. On the Right, the realigning GOP has increasingly, if at times inconsistently,
singled out China as the greatest threat to U.S. national security, a hostile attitude further
exacerbated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alarmingly, Joe Biden, the Democratic
presidential nominee, has recently joined the hawkish bandwagon toward China, even attempting
to outflank Trump on this issue and attacking the president's China policy as too weak and
accommodating of China's rise.
In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate
lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive
forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called
on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands,
we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict
between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for
realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well.
Indeed, the dominant tendency among many foreign policy observers is to overprivilege the
threat of rising superpowers and to insist on strong containment measures to limit the spheres
of influence of the so-called revisionist powers. Such an approach, coupled with the prospect
of ascendant powers actively resisting and confronting the United States as the ruling global
hegemon, has one eminent International Relations scholar warning of the Thucydides Trap.
There are others, however, who insist that the structural shifts undermining the liberal
international order mark the end of U.S. hegemony and its "unipolar moment." In realist terms,
what Secretary Esper really means to protect, they would argue, is a conception of
"rules-based" global order that was a structural by-product of the Second World War and the
ensuing Cold War and whose very rules and institutions were underwritten by U.S. hegemony. This
would be an exercise in folly -- not corresponding to the reality of systemic change and the
return of great power competition and civilizational contestation.
What's more, the sanctimony of this "liberal" hegemonic order and the logic of democratic
peace were both presumably vindicated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its totalitarian
system, a black swan event that for many had heralded the "end of history" and promised the
advent of the American century. A great deal of lives, capital, resources, and goodwill were
sacrificed by America and her allies toward that crusade for liberty and universality, which
was only the most recent iteration of a radically utopian element in American political thought
going back to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Alas, as it had eluded earlier generations of
idealists, that century never truly arrived, and neither did the empire of liberty and
prosperity that it loftily aimed to establish.
Today, the emerging reality of a multipolar world and alternate worldviews championed by the
different cultural blocs led by China and Russia appears to have finally burst the bubble of
American Triumphalism, proving that the ideas behind it are "not simply obsolete but absurd."
This failure should have been expected since the very project the idealists had espoused was
built on a pathological "savior complex" and a false truism that reflected the West's own
absolutist and distorted sense of ideological and moral superiority. Samuel Huntington might
have been right all along to cast doubt on the long-term salience of using ideology and
doctrinal universalism as the dividing principle for international relations. His call to
focus, instead, on civilizational distinction, the permanent power of culture on human action,
and the need to find common ground rings especially true today. Indeed, fostering a spirit of
coexistence and open dialogue among the world's great civilizational complexes is a fundamental
tenet of a cultural realism.
And yet, despite such permanent shifts in the global order away from universalist
dichotomies and global hegemony and toward culturalism and multi-polarity, there exists a
profound disjunction between the structural realities of the international system and the often
business-as-usual attitude of the North Atlantic foreign policy elites. How could one explain
the astonishing levels of rigidity and continuity on the part of the "blob" and the
military-industrial-congressional complex regularly pushing for more adventurism and
interventionism abroad? Why would the bipartisan primacist establishment, which their allies in
the mainstream media endeavor still to mask, justify such illiberal acts of aggression and
attempts at empire by weaponizing the moralistic language of human rights, individual liberty,
and democracy in a world increasingly awakened to arbitrary ideological framing?
There are, of course, systemic reasons behind the power and perpetuation of the blob and the
endurance of primacy. The vast economic incentives of war and its instruments, institutional
routinization and intransigence, stupefaction and groupthink of government bureaucracy, and the
significant influence of lobbying efforts by foreign governments and other vested interest
groups could each partly explain the remarkable continuity of the North Atlantic foreign policy
establishment. The endless stream of funding from the defense industry, neoliberal and
neoconservative foundations, as well as the government itself keeps the "blob" alive, while the
general penchant for bipartisanship around preserving the status quo allows it to thrive. What
is more, elite schools produce highly analytic yet narrowly focused and conventional minds that
are tamed to be agreeable so as to not undermine elite consensus. This conveyor belt feeds the
"blob," supplying it with the army of specialists, experts, and wonks it requires to function
as a mind melding hive, while in practice safeguarding employment for the career bureaucrats
for decades to come.
There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable
persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a
Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the
Soviet Union. The world might have changed fundamentally with the fall of the Berlin Wall in
1989, the bipolar structure of the international system might have ended irreversibly, but the
personnel -- the Baby Boomer Generation elites conducting foreign policy in the North Atlantic
-- did not leave office or retire with the collapse of the USSR. They largely remain in power
to this day.
Every generation is forged through a formative crisis, its experiences seen through the
prism that all-encompassing ordeal. For the incumbent elites, that generational crisis was the
Cold War and the omnipresent threat of nuclear annihilation. The dualistic paradigm of the
international system during the U.S.-Soviet rivalry bred an entire generation to see the world
through a black-and-white binary. It should come as no surprise that this era elevated the
idealist strain of thought and the crusading, neo-Jacobin impulse of U.S. foreign policy
(personified by Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson) to new, ever-expanding heights. Idealism
prizes a nemesis and thus revels in a bipolar order.
Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment
that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of
the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the
past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of
the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the
system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of
exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic
opposition to communism.
Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize
and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological
superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism.
After all, a nemetic zeitgeist during which ideology reigned supreme and realism was routinely
discounted was tailor-made for dogmatic absolutism and moral universalism. In such a zero-sum
strategic environment, it was only natural to demand totality and frame the ongoing
geopolitical struggle in terms of an existential opposition over Good and Evil that would quite
literally split the world in two.
Today, that same kind of Manichean thinking continues to handicap paradigmatic change in
foreign policy. A false consciousness, it underpins and promotes belief in the double myths of
indispensability and absolute exceptionality, suggesting that the North Atlantic bloc holds a
certain monopoly on all that is good and true. It is not by chance that such pathological
renderings of "exceptionalism" and "leadership" have been wielded as convenient rationale and
intellectual placeholders for the ideology of empire across the North Atlantic. This sense of
ingrained moral self-righteousness, coupled with an attitude that celebrates activism,
utopianism, and interventionism in foreign policy, has created and reinforced a culture of
strategic overextension and imperial overreach.
It is this very culture -- personified and dominated by the Baby Boomers and the blob they
birthed -- that has made hawkishness ubiquitous, avoids any real reckoning as to the limits of
power, and habitually belittles calls for restraint and moderation as isolationism. In truth,
however, what has been the exceptional part in the delusion of absolute exceptionalism is Pax
Americana, liberal hegemony, and the hubris that animates them having gone uncontested and
unchecked for so long. That confrontation could begin in earnest by directly challenging the
Boomer blob itself -- and by propagating a counter-elite offering a starkly different
worldview.
Achieving such a genuine paradigm shift demands a generational sea-change, to retire the old
blob and make a better one in its place. It is about time for the old establishment to forgo
its reign, allowing a new younger cohort from among the Millennial and post-Millennial
generations to advance into leadership roles. The Millennials, especially, are now the largest
generation of eligible voters (overtaking the Baby Boomers) as well as the first generation not
habituated by the Cold War; in fact, many of them grew up during the "unipolar moment" of
American hegemony. Hence, their generational identity is not built around a dualistic alterity.
Free from obsessive fixation on ideological supremacy, most among them reject total global
dominance as both unattainable and undesirable.
Instead, their worldview is shaped by an entirely different set of experiences and
disappointments. Their generational crisis was brought on by a series of catastrophic
interventions and endless wars around the world -- chief among them the debacles in Afghanistan
and Iraq and the toppling of Libya's Gaddafi -- punctuated by repeated onslaughts of financial
recessions and domestic strife. The atmosphere of uncertainty, instability, and general chaos
has bred discontent, turning many Millennials into pragmatic realists who are disenchanted with
the system, critical of the pontificating establishment, and naturally skeptical of lofty
ideals and utopian doctrines.
In short, this is not an absolutist and complacent generation of idealists, but one steeped
in realism and a certain perspectivism that has internalized the inherent relativity of both
power and truth. Most witnessed the dangers of overreach, hubris, and a moralized foreign
policy, so they are actively self-reflective, circumspect, and restrained. As a generation,
they appear to be less the moralist and the global activist and more prudent, level-headed, and
temperamentally conservative -- developing a keen appreciation for realpolitik, sovereignty,
and national interest. Their preference for a non-ideological approach in foreign policy
suggests that once in power, they will be less antagonistic and more tolerant of rival powers
and accepting of pluralism in the international system. That openness to civilizational
distinction and global cultural pluralism also implies that future Millennial statesmen will
subscribe to a more humble, less grandiose, and narrower definition of interest that focuses on
securing core objectives -- i.e., preserving national security and recognizing spheres of
influence.
Reforming and rehabilitating the U.S. foreign policy establishment will require more than
policy prescriptions and comprehensive reports: it needs generational change. To transform and
finally "rein in" North Atlantic foreign policy, our task today must be to facilitate and
expedite this shift. Once that occurs, the incoming Millennials should be better positioned to
discard the deep-seated and routinized ideology of empire, supplanting it with a greater
emphasis on partnership that is driven by mutual interests and a general commitment to sharing
the globe with the world's other great cultures.
This new approach calls for America to lead by the power of its example, exhibiting the
benefits of liberty and a constitutional republic at home, without forcibly imposing those
values abroad. Such an outlook means abandoning the coercive regime change agendas and the
corrosive projects of nation-building and democracy promotion. In this new multipolar world,
America would be an able, dynamic, and equal participant in ensuring sustainable peace
side-by-side the world's other great powers, acting as "a normal country in a normal time."
Reflecting the spirit of republican governance authentically is far more pertinent now and
salutary for the future of the North Atlantic peoples than is promulgating the utopian image of
a shining city on a hill.
Arta Moeini is research director at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy and a postdoc
fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship. Dr. Moeini's latest project advances a
theory of cultural realism as a cornerstone to a new understanding of foreign policy.
The Institute for Peace and Diplomacy will be co-sponsoring "The Future of Grand Strategy
in the Post-COVID World," with TAC, tonight at 6 p.m. ET. Register for free here
.
By Dr. Karin Kneissl , who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs
from 2017-2019. In June, she published her book on diplomacy 'Diplomatie Macht Geschichte' in Germany through Olms, and in early
September her book 'Die Mobilitätswende', or 'Mobility in Transition', was released in Vienna by Braumüller. The cacophony of
noise generated in the wake of the attack on the Russian opposition figure is drowning out the reality. As Angela Merkel has always
maintained, the German-Russian gas deal is purely a commercial project.
Nord Stream has always had the ingredients to drive sober-minded Germans emotional. I remember energy conferences in Germany back
in 2006 when already the idea of such a gas pipeline as a direct connection from Russia to Germany provoked deep political rows,
not just in Berlin but across the EU.
Conservatives disliked it for the simple reason that it was a "Schröder thing," the legacy of social democrat Chancellor Gerhard
Schröder, who lost the election of September 2005 to Angela Merkel. Schröder had negotiated the project with his good friend, President
Vladimir Putin, and then chaired the company in charge of implementing it.
Around that time, I was invited to an energy conference in Munich by the conservative think tank, the Hanns Seidel Foundation,
managed by the Bavarian party CSU, the traditional junior partner of the ruling CDU in the government. The bottom-line of the debate
on Nord Stream was negative, with the consensus being that the German-Russian pipeline would lead to the implosion of a European
common foreign policy and damage the EU's energy ambitions.
I attended many other such events across Germany, from parliament to universities, and listened carefully to all the arguments.
The feelings towards Nord Stream were much more benign at meetings held under the auspices of the SPD.
But over the years, the rift between different political parties evaporated, and a consensus emerged which supported enhanced
energy cooperation between Berlin and Moscow. Politicians of all shades defended the first pipeline, Nord Stream 1, after it went
operational in 2011, bringing Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
They also enthusiastically supported the creation of the second, Nord Stream 2, better known by its acronym NS2. This $11bn (£8.4bn)
1,200km pipeline is almost finished and was due to go online next year.
But now, in the very final stage of construction, everything has been thrown in limbo thanks to the alleged poisoning of Russian
opposition figure Alexey Navalny.
NS2 has always been controversial. Critics, such as the US and Poland, have argued that it makes Germany too reliant on energy
from a politically unreliable partner. President Trump last year signed a law imposing sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's
state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish it. The White House fears NS2 will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and
reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.
These sanctions have caused delays to the project. A special ship owned by a Swiss company menaced with sanctions had to be replaced.
And prior to that, various legal provisions were brought up by the European Commission that had to be fulfilled by the companies
in retrospect.
Now the case of Navalny, currently being treated at a Berlin clinic after being awoken from a medically induced coma, has thrown
everything up in the air again. It has triggered a political cacophony that threatens relations between Germany, the EU, Russia,
and Washington. And at the center is the pipeline.
Various German sources, among them laboratories of the armed forces, have alleged that Navalny had been poisoned with the nerve
agent Novichok. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD)
stated in an interview published on Sunday by Bild: " I hope the Russians don't force us to change our stance on Nord Stream
2 – we have high expectations of the Russian government that it will solve this serious crime ." He claimed to have seen "
a lot of evidence " that the Russian state was behind the attack. " The deadly chemical weapon with which Navalny was poisoned
was in the past in the possession of Russian authorities ," he insisted.
He conceded that stopping the almost-completed pipeline would harm German and broader European business interests, pointing out
that the gas pipeline's construction involves "over 100 companies from 12 European countries, and about half of them come from Germany."
Maas also threatened the Kremlin with broader EU sanctions if it did not help clarify what happened "in the coming days." Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded by labeling the accusations "groundless" and Moscow has staunchly denied any involvement
in the affair.
The whole matter is complicated by domestic political considerations in Germany. CDU politician Norbert Röttgen, who heads up
foreign affairs within the ruling party and has demanded that the pipeline should be stopped, is among those conservatives vying
to lead the CDU in the run-up to Chancellor Angela Merkel's retirement next year. Meanwhile, Merkel is still trying to strike a balance
between the country's legal commitments, her well-known mantra that NS2 is a " purely commercial project, " and what is now
a major foreign policy crisis.
The chancellor had always focused on the business dimension. But most large energy projects also have a geopolitical dimension,
and that certainly holds true with Nord Stream.
When I was Austria's foreign minister, I saw first-hand the recurring and very harsh criticism of the project by US politicians
and officials. I remember the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, in a speech at the margins of the UN General Assembly in September
2018 that focused solely on NS2. I replied by pointing out to him that pipelines are not built to annoy others, but because there
is demand. One thing was certain – the US opposition to Nord Stream would not wane and now the Navalny case has given it new impetus.
What we are witnessing is a tremendous politicization of the pipeline with a wide range of people all shouting very loudly.
So here we are, in a very poisoned atmosphere where it might be difficult to revise positions without losing face. The social
democrat Maas, just like the conservative Röttgen and many others, have taken to the media for different reasons. In my observation,
it might have to do with their respective desires to take a strong position in order to also mark their upcoming emancipation from
the political giant Merkel (she is due to step down next year).
Due to her professional and empathetic handling of the pandemic, she is today much more popular than before the crisis. That makes
it difficult for a junior partner, represented by Foreign Minister Maas, and for all those who wish to challenge her inside the party.
What is needed is to get the topic out of the media and out of the to-and-fro of daily petty politics. Noisy statements might
serve some, but not the overall interests involved. And there are many at stake. It is not only about energy security in times of
transition, namely moving away from nuclear, but much wider matters.
As a legal scholar, I deem the loss of trust in contracts. Vertragstreue, as we call it in German – loyalty to the contract –
will be the biggest collateral damage if the pipeline is abandoned for political reasons. This fundamental principle of every civilization
was coined as pacta sunt servanda by the Romans – agreements must be kept. Our legal system is based on this. Who would still conclude
contracts of such volumes with German companies if politics can change the terms of trade overnight?
In June 2014, construction sites on the coasts of the Black sea, both in Russia and Bulgaria, were ready for starting the gas
pipeline South Stream. After pressure from the European Commission, the work never started. The political reason was the dispute
on Ukraine – in particular, the annexation of the Crimea. However, the legal argument was that the tenders for the contracts were
in contradiction with EU regulations on competition. Tens of thousands of work permits, which had been issued from Bulgaria to Serbia
etc., were withdrawn. The economic consequence was the rise of China's influence in the region. South Stream was redirected to Turkey.
So here we are in the midst of a diplomatic standoff. It is a genuine dilemma, but it could also turn into a watershed. Will contracts
be respected or will we move into a further cycle of uncertainty on all levels? Germany is built on contracts, norms (probably much
too many) and not on arbitrariness.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
silvermoon 5 hours ago
All these weeks have passed and Germany has still not shown shared actual evidence of their Navalny tests
with Russia though. That is the same as saying we found the gun with your finger prints on it but never showing it.
Count_Cash
silvermoon 3 hours ago
Correct, Germany has only since 10th September (if confirmed) shared any 'evidence'. That is sufficient intervening
time to concoct any test result and associated materials that they want - another Diesel scandal. Indeed people will ask why when
you had the patient on 22nd of august, it took you so long to send samples to the OPCW, despite almost immediately yelling Poison!
gainwmn silvermoon 5 hours ago
U stupid sheep: Germany did show it to the OPCW, i.e. the organization RF is the member of,
and therefore the latter gets the full access to all the data provided by Germany, as well as any other of 192 members. Kremlin lies
and demands in this regard is more than ridiculous, they completely destroy any shred of trust left to all RF governmental structures
and regime itself.
Teodor Nitu gainwmn 3 hours ago
Riiight!...Those Russians...not only their chemical
weapons are no longer working, but they are no longer capable to choose the proper time to use them, or so the story goes. Think
about it; they 'used' novichok to kill the Skripals and they are still alive and well (supposedly), now they (Russians) 'used' novichok
again to kill Navalny and he is alive and getting better.
Besides, they chose the absolutely wrong time to do it. With Skripals it
was just before the opening of the World Cup in Russia and now, just before the finishing of the North Stream 2 pipeline.
It sounds
that they are sabotaging their own interests, aren't they? Are they (Russians) that stup!d? Some 'smart' posters here seem to believe
it. But lets get real, one has to be able to see beyond the length of his nose, in order to understand what is really going on.
silvermoon Teodor Nitu 2 hours ago
Russia had all their chemical weapons legally destroyed. Along with hundreds of countries. The
US, UK and Israel never did. Navalny the innocent anti Putin. Can't win one way try another.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
So why is Russia still asking for it? Clearly, something is being withheld. As for
the OPCW, their credibility has been shot for years with all their fake Syrian chem weapon attack reports.
seawolf 6 hours ago
Even if there was not Navalny's story, they could invent another to stop the project.
Abraxas79 seawolf 4 hours ago
Exactly.
I hope Russia is the one that abandons it. Let Germany be the one that decides to cancel it and go along with it. Concentrate on
supplying China and other Asian nations and internal consumption. Forget about Europe. You don't have to turn off the current supply,
just charge more for it when the market allows. Looks like the next German leader according to this article is quite the Russophobe,
which means relations will only get worse.
Pro_RussiaPole Abraxas79 2 hours ago
If this navalny farce does end up cancelling the NS2 project, Russia should stop all gas transit to western Europe through
Poland and Ukraine by spring of next year. Tell those countries that will be cut off that Russia can either sell them LNG, or
that they will have to connect to other sources of gas. Because if certain countries are so against Russian gas, then why are
they not doing anything against Russian gas going through Poland and Ukraine, and why isn't Trump threatening sanctions on
these countries for doing so?
Blue8ball713 RTjackanory 3 hours ago
Its a far longer list
and it have the fingerprints of GB secret services all over it.
Reply Gabriel Delpino seawolf 46 seconds ago It is not in the interest
of Germany to stop de project. Reply
magicmirror 6 hours ago
Europe should have nothing to do with the USA ....... proved time and
time again they cannot be trusted. All they want is markets, resources and consumers. They lie, they cheat, they steal...... (quoting mr Pompeo, I think). A big opportunity to win Europe's independence.
SmellLaRata
5 hours ago
All due respect for Mr. Navalny but since when does an individual fate of one person dictates the fate for millions ?
And c' mon Germany. Your hypocrisy is so utterly laughable. You ignore the Assange and Snowden cases, the slaughter of Kashoggi,
the brutal beating of yellow vests, the brutal actions against the Catalans ... but Navalni. Not even a hint of a proof of government
involvemen. But it fits the agenda, does it? The agenda which is dictated by the deep state agitators who so much flourished under
Obama.
gainwmn SmellLaRata
4 hours ago
Even being not a fan (to say the least) of the US foreign and some of the domestic policy, I have to point out that tried
by U analogy is largely out of balance: first, the issue in Navalny (as well as in Scripals' and others cases acted on with poisons)
case is not so much the assassination attempt on a person's life, as the banned use of chemical weapons, the ban RF's signature has
been under since 1993. And that conclusion (Russia's guilt) has not been made by the UK or Germany or any other country alone, but
the OPCW - the organization not only RF is the member of, but also 191(!) other countries, out of which not a single country (except
RF) rejected that conclusion!; second, the US did not made attempt on either Snowden's or Assange's life, with any kind of weapon,
not already mentioning the weapons banned by the international agreements American government(s) signed. This is a large - I would
say - decisive difference! As far as Kashoggi's case or other cases sited by U, RF did not react with sanctions against the respective
perpetrators either, thus demonstrating the same disregard for the law and order as the US did... therefore making all lies about
innocent RF and evil US, foolish, at the least.
Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago
The US and its lackeys are killing Assange. They are doing it slowly. And many voices going along with a lie does not make
the lie true. Because these poisoning allegations are lies. The accused were never allowed to see the evidence or challenge
it. And there is the whole issue of politicized reports coming out of the OPCW that contradicted evidence and reality.
Nathi Sibbs 4 hours ago
After completing the pipe and
it start running Russia must turn off all Ukraine pipes. No more gas for free from Russia, Ukraine must start importing LNG from thier reliable partner USA. I think imports from USA will be good for Ukrainian Nazi people
Abraxas79 Nathi Sibbs 4 hours
ago
How are they going to pay for it? Ukraine's only exports these days are its women to various brothels across Europe and North
America.
Hilarous 5 hours ago
The German leaders know very well that the case of Navalny will never be resolved and exists
for no other reason than to seize a pretext to demonize Russia and to end Nord Stream 2 in exchange for US freedom gas
magicmirror
Hilarous 4 hours ago
freedom gas and handsome presents .....
SandythePole 3 hours ago
This is an excellent account by Dr Karin Kneissl. It is a genuine dilemma for 'occupied'
Europe. Its occupying master does NOT want NS2 and will do anything to stop it. Russia suffers sanctions upon sanctions, but still
gallantly tries to maintain friendly and honourable business relations with its implacable neighbours. For how much longer is this
to continue? Surely there must be some limit to the endless provocations of occupied Europe and its Western master. Perhaps it is
time to shut off the oil and gas and leave Germany to sail under its own wind.
dunkie56 3 hours ago
Perhaps Russia should disengage
with Germany/EU totally and forge ahead in partnership with China and India and whoever wants to do business. let the EU tie it's
ship to the sinking US ship and drown along with it's protection racket partner! Then Russia should build a new iron curtain between
itself and all countries who want to align with the EU..in the long run Russia has tried to forge a partnership with the West but
it just has not born any fruit and even as pragmatic as Russia is they must be coming to the conclusion they are flogging a dead
horse!
Blue8ball713 dunkie56 2 hours ago With 146 million citizen Russia is too small to be a real partner to anyone like
China or India. Best fit is the EU, but the EU is controlled or better said occupied by the USA. Its part of their hegemonial system.
So Russia is left out in the rain..
micktaketo 5 hours ago
I am not sure if it is the right thing to do but I think Russia
should sue the German authorities if this deal is withdrawn and if it is have nothing to do with Germany again along with other corrupt
countries that cannot prove or at the least bring forth their evidence to be seen, to be transparent to all even Russia the first,
because Russia is the one being accused. These countries must think we the people are all completely stupid and Russia more so. This
corruption stinks to high heaven and is obvious to all sane people who love fairness. You cannot trust an entity that believes in
getting what they want by hook or by crook. Russia learn your lesson ! So you countries that love whats good for you and your people
do not cheat them for they voted for you to help them. Germany do not kick yourself, it will hurt your people. Saying, There is more
than one way to skin a cat, they say.
Mutlu Ozer 3 hours ago
There is a simple concept to investigate a crime to find the criminals: Just look at whose benefit the crime is? EU
politicians are certainly smart people to know this basic concept of criminal investigation. However, now they are playing a
new strategy about how to domesticate(!) not only Russia China as well... Germans are the main actors in the stage of the WW-I
and WW-II. I surely claim that Germans would be the main architect of the last war, WW-III.
The foreign policy elite dislikes Russia, always has, and will do anything to keep
this "adversary" front and center because their prospects for prestige, power and position
depend upon the presence of an enemy. As an example see Strobe Talbot and Michael
McFaul.
Notable quotes:
"... Ben Cardin agreed to be the cosponsor of a Magnitsky Act in the Senate. He sought a Republican cosponsor, John McCain, a Russophobic senator who never met a war he didn't like. ..."
"... It wasn't the first time McCain helped a fraudster. McCain was one of the corrupt "Keating Five" senators who improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., corrupt chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which collapsed in 1989 at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government (and thus taxpayers). Many investors lost their life savings. ..."
"... To get to McCain and others, Browder hired lobbyist Juleanna Glover, who had been Vice President Dick Cheney's press secretary and then Attorney General John Ashcroft's senior policy adviser. She went with Ashcroft when he left government to run the Washington office of his law firm, the Ashcroft Group. ..."
"... She got Browder a meeting with McCain who agreed to sponsor the Magnitsky Act. It fit with his Russophobia and friendship with fraudsters. ..."
"... On September 29, 2010, Senators Ben Cardin, John McCain, Roger Wicker (Republican of Mississippi) and Joe Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) introduced the bill in the Senate. Anyone involved in the false arrest, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or the crimes he uncovered, would be publicly named, banned from entering the United States, and have their U.S. assets frozen. ..."
"... Remember again that a few months later Browder would tell the San Diego law school he didn't know how Magnitsky died. ..."
"... How the Browder-Magnitsky hoax law got passed in a trade deal ..."
"... Browder got Senator Joe Lieberman, conservative Democrat from Connecticut, to agree to block Jackson-Vanik repeal unless the administration stopped blocking his Magnitsky Act. ..."
"... Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act sent a letter to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The letter said, "In the absence of the passage of the Magnitsky legislation, we will strongly oppose the lifting of Jackson-Vanik." ..."
"... The final count December 6, 2012 was 92-4. Levin and three other Democrats – Bernie Sanders as well as Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island – were the only Senators to vote against it. Elizabeth Warren was not yet in the Senate. ..."
"... It was signed by Obama a week later. Read Title IV of the law to see how it is based on the fake claims the chief sponsors would not, could not prove. Including "he was beaten by 8 guards with rubber batons on the last day of his life" based on zero evidence, just Browder's lies. (I also wrote to Cardin's office and got no reply.) ..."
As the Democratic Convention is in progress, it is fitting to look at how Democrats in Congress and the White House, with Republican
collaboration, were responsible for the
Magnitsky Act , the law that protects tax fraudster William Browder and his henchman Mikhail Khodorkovsky by erecting a wall
against their having to face justice for their financial crimes. And ramps up hostility against Russia.
The fraudster William Browder .
This is a half-hour interview about this I did today on this subject
for Fault Lines . And a 15-minute
interview for The Critical
Hour . Here is an expanded version of what I said.
William Browder in the mid-1990s became manager of the Hermitage Fund, set up with $25 million from Lebanese-Brazilian banker
Edmond Safra and Israeli mining investor Beny Steinmez to buy shares in Russian companies.
He says he started the fund, but that is a lie. He was brought in to manage other people's money. But after some years, when the
two investors either died or confronted major financial problems, Browder gained control.
Browder doesn't like paying taxes.
Browder was an American who traded his citizenship for a UK passport in 1998 so he could avoid paying U.S. taxes on his stock
profits. ( CBS called
him a tax expatriate.)
He didn't like paying Russian taxes either. In an early rip-off, he and his partners billionaire Kenneth Dart of Dart cups and
New York investor Francis Baker bought a majority of Avisma, a titanium company, that produces material used in airplanes.
They cheated
minority investors and the Russian tax collector of profits by using transfer pricing.
You sell your production to a fake company at a low price, then your fake company sells it at the world price. You book lower
dividends to cheat minority shareholders, report lower taxes to cheat the Russian people.
Browder and partners bought Avisma from infamous oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky on the basis of continuing his transfer
pricing scam. It was revealed by documents in a lawsuit when Browder and partners sued another infamous guy, Peter Bond, the Isle
of man crook handling the rake-offs for not passing on the full amount of the skim. (No honor among thieves!) The legal documents
where Browder admits to the scam are linked in this
story
.
Browder cheats bigtime on Russia taxes
Browder's next corruption was to
cheat the Russians of taxes from his stock buys in Russia, to the tune of about $100million. That included claiming as deductions
disabled workers who didn't work for him, local investments he never made, profits from stock buys of Gazprom the Russian energy
conglomerate that non-Russians were not allowed to buy in Russia.
Investigations started in the early 2000s for $40 mil in evaded takes and led to legal judgments in 2004. When he refused to pay,
in November 2005 he was denied a Russian visa and in 2006 he moved all his assets out of Russia. But the Russian tax evasion investigations
continued.
Browder's accountant Sergei Magnitsky was arrested for investigation of the tax evasion in 2008, and the European Commission on
Human Rights
ruled last year that was correct because of the evidence and because he was a flight risk. Browder's fake narrative was that
Magnitsky, who he lied was his lawyer , had been arrested because he blew the whistle on a scheme by Russian officials to
embezzle money from the Russian Treasury. In his own U.S. federal
court deposition
, Browder admits Magnitsky didn't go to law school or have a law license. See his brief
video on
that.
Browder gives speeches that he didn't know how Magnitsky died
Then Magnitsky died of heart failure exacerbated by stomach disease which forensic reports say was not properly treated. Browder
first said (in talks at the British foreign policy association
Chatham House , London, a month after he died, and San Diego Law School
-- video at minute 6:20 -- a year later) he didn't know how Magnitsky died, but after a few years he invented a story that he
had been beaten to death.
Jonathan Winer, who helped Browder with his scam.
That story was developed by Jonathan Winer, a former assistant to Senator John Kerry and then a State Department official. Winer
was working for APCO, an international public relations company one of whose major clients was the same Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They
correctly assumed the western media would do no research. Or at least would not be allowed to report it. And the mainstream media
never did, except much later
Der Spiegel in Germany, which the rest of the western press ignored.
The plan was to get a U.S. law that would in effect block the Russians from going after certain Americans who had cheated on taxes.
They would be Browder and Khodorkovsky, who is actually named in the law.
Khodorkovsky would spend several hundred thousand dollars to buy Congressional support for the Magnitsky Act, clearly money
well spent. He duly reported it as lobbying expenses.
Here is how the Democrats and Republicans colluded in the Browder Magnitsky hoax. Much of this comes from Browder's own writings
in his mostly fake book "Red Notice." Note the corruption of both parties.
Magnitsky died in November 2009. Only four months later in March 2010, Browder was plotting his Magnitsky hoax, attacking Russians
he would claim were responsible for Magnitsky's death. But the bizarre part of the story is that he continued throughout 2010 to
say he didn't know how Magnitsky died, including in a videoed Dec 2010
San Diego law school talk. He obviously assumed U.S. media and politicians would not notice or care about the contradictions.
Ben Cardin, senator who signed on to Browder hoax.
Browder got Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin to send a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March 2010 urging
her to ban visas for 60 people Browder had listed (without evidence) as complicit in Magnitsky's death. (Remember 9 months later
in a videoed talk at San Diego Law School Browder says he didn't know how Magnitsky died.)
The letter to Hillary Clinton, written (Browder says in his book) by Browder acolyte Kyle Parker, a staffer at the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, said, I "urge you to immediately cancel and permanently withdraw the U.S. visa privileges of all those involved
in this crime, along with their dependents and family members." Immediately? No due process, not even for children and grandparents?
Cousins?
Attached to the letter was the list of the sixty officials Browder accused, without evidence, of involvement in Magnitsky's death
and a tax fraud against the Treasury.
Browder's fake tax refund fraud
The tax refund fraud was a scheme in which shell companies were set up to sue Browder's Hermitage companies claiming contract
violations and damages of $1billion. The Hermitage companies immediately agreed to pay (no evidence of actual bank transfers), then
demanded the Treasury pay a tax refund of $230million because they now had zero profits.
Viktor Markelov, tried and jailed for the scam,
said he worked with a Sergei Leonidovich, which is Magnitsky's name and patronymic. Other evidence, including an inexplicable
delay of months between Browder learning about the his companies being re-registered in other names and him reporting that as
"theft," indicates he was part of the scam too.
Note this: Hermitage trustee HSBC filed a financial document in July 2007 saying it was putting aside $7 million for legal
costs that might be required to get back the companies. This was five months before the tax refund fraud occurred. Albert
Dabbah, chief financial controller for HSBC, confirmed the
document's authenticity in U.S.
federal court. But Browder and Magnitsky (in his
testimony
) said they didn't learn about the "theft" till October 2007.
Theft of his companies? The best defense is a good offense. Accuse others of the crime you committed.
Senator Cardin was requesting that all sixty of Browder's accused have their U.S. travel privileges permanently revoked.
But Hillary didn't buy it. Then House staffer Parker arranged for Browder to
testify about the Magnitsky case May 6 th at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, not an official House body but
a pressure group set up in the name of a Russophobic former congressman from Hungary.
Congressman Jim McGovern would not send the evidence he promised, because he couldn't. There wasn't any.
The commission chairman was Massachusetts Democratic congressman Jim McGovern, who runs liberal but is a Russophobe who pretends
to be a human rights advocate.
Now what is really interesting is that seven months after this May 6 testimony, on December 6, 2010, Browder was telling the
San Diego law school (video 6:20 in) that "they put him in a straight
jacket, put him in an isolation room and waited outside the door until he died." Nothing about torture or killing. Had Browder forgotten
his dramatic beating story?
McGovern at the Lantos Commission hearing asked for no evidence. He said he would introduce legislation, put the 60 names Browder
cited in it, move it to the committee and make a formal recommendation from Congress, then pass it on the floor.
McGovern lies about sending evidence
Kimberly Stanton, who runs a propaganda operation and refused to provide evidence.
In July 2019, almost a decade later, I saw McGovern when he spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations. I asked if he would send
me evidence backing the claim that Magnitsky was tortured and killed. He agreed and introduced me to an aide. The aide referred me
to Kimberly Stanton, director of the Lantos Commission, who refused in an
email
to provide any information. And said evidence against targeted people is not required!
I also wrote McGovern's press secretary Matt Bonaccorsi and legislative director Cindy Buhl. They ignored repeated requests, never
sent me anything. I conclude that Jim McGovern, who pretends to be a liberal civil rights promoter, is a fake and a fraud.
McGovern introduces a Magnitsky bill in the House.
John McCain, he loved fraudsters and wars.
Ben Cardin agreed to be the cosponsor of a Magnitsky Act in the Senate. He sought a Republican cosponsor, John McCain, a Russophobic
senator who never met a war he didn't like.
It wasn't the first time McCain helped a fraudster. McCain was one of the corrupt "Keating Five" senators who improperly intervened
in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., corrupt chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which collapsed in 1989
at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government (and thus taxpayers). Many investors lost their life savings.
Keating was the target of a regulatory investigation. With powerful senators like McCain advocating his cause, the regulator
backed off taking action against Lincoln. Though Keating went to jail. McCain was cited only for exercising "poor judgment." Helping
a crook doesn't get you thrown out of the Senate.
To get to McCain and others, Browder hired lobbyist Juleanna Glover, who had been Vice President Dick Cheney's press secretary
and then Attorney General John Ashcroft's senior policy adviser. She went with Ashcroft when he left government to run the Washington
office of his law firm, the Ashcroft Group.
Juleanna Glover, former aide to Dick Cheney. She can buy you a bill .
She got Browder a meeting with McCain who agreed to sponsor the Magnitsky Act. It fit with his Russophobia and friendship
with fraudsters.
On September 29, 2010, Senators Ben Cardin, John McCain, Roger Wicker (Republican of Mississippi) and Joe Lieberman (Democrat
of Connecticut) introduced the bill in the Senate. Anyone involved in the false arrest, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or
the crimes he uncovered, would be publicly named, banned from entering the United States, and have their U.S. assets frozen.
Remember again that a few months later Browder would tell the San Diego
law school he didn't know how Magnitsky died.
Now here is how the law got passed. The Jackson-Vanick amendment put in place in the mid-1970s imposed trade sanctions on the
Soviet Union to punish it for not allowing Soviet Jews to emigrate. Well, nobody could emigrate. Eventually 1.5 million Jews were
allowed to leave the country.
How the Browder-Magnitsky hoax law got passed in a trade deal
Thirty-seven years later the Soviet Union no longer existed, and everybody could emigrate, but Jackson-Vanik was still on the
books. It blocked American corporations from enjoying the same trade benefits with Russia as the world's other WTO members.
So, the U.S. business community said Jackson-Vanik had to go, and the Obama administration agreed. So did John Kerry, chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They needed an act of Congress.
Meanwhile, Kerry opposed the Magnitsky Act which he considered untoward interference in Russia (is that like saying meddling?)
and had been delaying bringing it to vote in committee.
Browder got Senator Joe Lieberman, conservative Democrat from Connecticut, to agree to block Jackson-Vanik repeal unless the
administration stopped blocking his Magnitsky Act.
Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act sent a letter to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee. The letter said, "In the absence of the passage of the Magnitsky legislation, we will strongly oppose
the lifting of Jackson-Vanik."
John Kerry had good instincts, forced to make bad compromise.
So, Kerry stopped his opposition to the Magnitsky Act.
The two bills were combined. First the bill would be brought up at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to pass Magnitsky, then
it would go before the Finance Committee to repeal Jackson-Vanik, and then, it would go before the full Senate for a vote.
Kerry called for a meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2012, with the purpose of approving the Magnitsky
Act.
At the hearing, Kerry said that America was not a perfect country, and that the people in that room should be "very mindful of
the need for the United States not to always be pointing fingers and lecturing and to be somewhat introspective as we think about
these things." (Such nuance would obviously not be allowed today.)
He was "worried about the unintended consequences of requiring that kind of detailed reporting that implicates a broader range
of intelligence." He didn't have to worry. Reporting? Intelligence? Actual evidence would never be required! The U.S. was
setting up a kangaroo court and calling it a human rights tribunal!
The bill passed the House 365 to 43 on November 16, 2012. Voting "No" were 37 Democrats and 6 Republicans. Among them Maxine
Waters and Ron Paul. And surprisingly New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler who since then became a Russophobe. Tulsi Gabbard had not
yet been elected.
Kyle Parker told Browder, "There are a number of senators who are insisting on keeping Magnitsky global instead of Russia-only."
One was Cardin, but also Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan – a political giant who spent many years fighting, holding hearings, about
offshore tax evasion and must have known very well how Browder was a poster child for offshore tax-evading crooks. Also Jon Kyl,
Republican from Arizona. Of course, Browder wanted "Russia only," because the purpose of the law was to attack Russia, not to promote
global human rights. Cardin withdrew his objection, and the bill was "Russia only."
The Senate vote
The final count December 6, 2012 was 92-4. Levin and three other Democrats – Bernie Sanders as well as Jack Reed and Sheldon
Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island – were the only Senators to vote against it. Elizabeth Warren was not yet in the Senate.
It was signed by Obama a week later. Read Title IV of
the law to see how it is based on the
fake claims the chief sponsors would not, could not prove. Including "he was beaten by 8 guards with rubber batons on the last
day of his life" based on zero evidence, just Browder's lies. (I also wrote to Cardin's office and got no reply.)
It was the first pillar of Russiagate, where Cold Warrior Democrats joined forces with Cold Warrior Republicans. The result would
be to build a wall against Russia bringing Browder to justice, including getting Interpol to refuse to issue a red notice that would
require other countries to arrest him. He would name his book Red Notice as a jab at the Russians.
And the crooks Browder and Khodorkovsky, protected from the rule of law, laughed all the way to their offshore banks. Here's the
link to Browder's Mossack Fonseca (on Panama Papers fame) bank.
(Speaking of the rule of law, it doesn't apply to offshore banks, with secret owners of companies and accounts. They are largely
run by western banks that make big profits from laundering the money of the world's crooks. Note on any SEC filing where banks have
their subsidiaries: Caymans, Isle of Man, Guernsey, BVI, etc. No local clients, just financial fakery: letterbox companies, tax evasion.
It's okay. When there's corruption, only the little people go to jail. In the offshore system, the corrupt financial oligarchy rules.)
Among the most notable highlights at last night's Republican National Convention, Senator
Rand Paul delivered a blistering take down of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's
foreign policy, which Paul linked to multiple wars under Democrat administrations spanning
decades (going back to Clinton's bombing of Serbia).
"I fear Biden will choose war again," Paul
asserted . "He supported war in Serbia, Syria, Libya. Joe Biden will continue to spill our
blood and treasure. President Trump will bring our heroes home."
"If you hate war like I hate war, if you want us to quit sending $50 billion every year to
Afghanistan to build their roads and bridges instead of building them here at home , you need
to support President Trump for another term," said Paul, who has long been a fierce critic of
former President Obama's foreign policy, including overt intervention in Libya, and covert
action toward destabilizing Syria.
He slammed Biden as a hawk who has "consistently called for more war" and with no signs
anything would be different.
Interestingly, Sen. Paul has also in the recent past led foreign policy push back against
President Trump - especially over the two times Trump has bombed Syria following alleged Assad
chemical attacks, which Paul along with other anti-interventionists across the aisle like Tulsi
Gabbard questioned to begin with.
But it appears Paul is firmly supportive of Trump's newly
released 50-point agenda for his second term outlining the Commander-in-Chief will "stop
endless war" and ultimately bring US troops "home." The plan still emphasized, however, the
administration will "maintain" US military strength abroad while 'wiping' out global
terrorism.
"President Trump is the first president in a generation to seek to end war rather than start
one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home. Compare
President Trump with the disastrous record of Joe Biden, who has consistently called for more
war ," Paul
said further.
Back during the primaries in 2016, Paul and Trump sparred intensely over national security
questions:
He also highlighted Biden's unrepentant yes vote to go to war in Iraq .
"I'm supporting President Trump because he believes as I do that a strong America cannot
fight endless wars. We must not continue to leave our blood and treasure in Middle East
quagmires," Paul concluded.
Elsewhere in the approximately four-minute speech, Paul said Trump will fight "socialists
poisoning our schools and burning our cities."
Cluster_Frak , 7 hours ago
Obama was a warmonger and so is Biden. They love war and doing everything possible for the
next war to be on the home ground.
Davidduke2000 , 7 hours ago
Obama had skeletons in his closet, he did what the neocons want, Trump gave them the
embassy and other shenanigans.
Izzy Dunne , 2 hours ago
And so is Trump. They are all warmongers, because war is what the US does...
Weihan , 7 hours ago
Paul is right.
Biden knows who butters his bread. At least candidate Trump - in principle - stood for
opposition to the deep state's monstrous agenda.
Biden, Clinton, Bush, Obama are despicable warmongers. Their administrations were
responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and the list
would have gone on and on had it not been for Trump.
Remember Biden's 1992 Wall Street Journal article titled:
"How I Learned to Love the New World Order."
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 7 hours ago
Rand was the only guy I watched last night and he was on point. I did not disagree with
anything he said.
kulkarniravi , 8/26/2020, 2:33:07 PM
You can diss Obama all you want, but he signed a peace accord with Iran and Trump reneged
on it. Iran is not the villain, at least not when compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia. And
what's the deal with Cuba?
d_7878 , 6 hours ago
Rand on Trump:
"Are we going to fix the country through bombast and empty blather?
"Unless someone points out the emperor has no clothes, they will continue to strut about,
and then we'll end up with a reality TV star as our nominee."
"Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag"
"Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye?""[It is] annoying, irritating and
might even make you cry.
"If the dirt doesn't go away, it will keep scratching your cornea until eventually it
blinds you with all its filth. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president."
Trump is a "fake conservative."
mike_1010 , 7 hours ago
Trump might be talking peace, but he has increased US military spending significantly more
than previous presidents. He also tore up the US peace agreement with Iran and nearly
triggered a US war with Iran by assassinating one of their top generals.
If any president is going to start a war with Iran, then it's Trump. And such a war would
dwarf any recent wars USA has fought. Because Iran is three times bigger than Iraq in terms
of their population, and they've been preparing for a possible US attack for decades.
Perhaps Biden might start a small war here or there. But Trump goes big on anything he
does. If he starts a war, then it's going to be either with China or Iran.
So, neither Biden nor Trump is to be trusted, when it comes to war. But I'd say that Trump
is the bigger danger compared to Biden. Because if Trump starts a war, then it might end up
being a nuclear war.
Airstrip1 , 6 hours ago
Rand Paul needs to ask himself if the pot is blacker than the kettle.
How can he expect people to believe this disingenuous claptrap ?
The USA is an Empire-building Crime Cartel.
Dims or Reps are just frontmen managers for the Mob.
chopsuey , 7 hours ago
Ron and Rand. The dog and pony show. The alternative. They say what you want to hear.
I say
Phuck OFF Ron and Rand. You had many many years to do something (anything) about the
endless "wars" and in reality, they are not really wars. They are ruthless invasions of
vulnerable countries whereupon natural resources are contained, the culture and its symbolic
treasures are destroyed/stolen and thousands to millions are killed in the name of USA. These
unwarranted invasions are justified with lies and fraud and deceit.
Washington DC is the military capital of the world doing the dirty work of the elite. And
its soldier are your kids and grandkids.
Wake the Phuck UP people. It will not end until they have achieved their objectives. You
are fodder for their cannon.
Dragonlord , 7 hours ago
Biden voted for war in Iraq and supported Obama aggression in Libya, Syria, etc and he is
disappointed that Trump did not help Kurd to wage war against Turks for their
independence.
ConanTheContrarian1 , 7 hours ago
Not sure. Trump has to play ball with established Deep State interests while he tries (I
hope) to set things right. So, yes, questions will abound for some time.
takefive , 7 hours ago
whatever the reason, he is now part of the swamp. and that's why he's in a tough
re-election battle with a stiff.
Ex-Oligarch , 3 hours ago
You have it exactly wrong. If Trump were really part of the swamp, they wouldn't be
fighting so desperately to prevent his re-election. They wouldn't have spent three years on
the Russiagate failed coup, they wouldn't have gone through the ridiculous partisan
impeachment exercise, they wouldn't have torpedoed the economy over coronavirus, and we
wouldn't have organized race riots in all the democrat strongholds.
LaugherNYC , 3 hours ago
Rand Paul is just about the only grown-up in American politics.
How much bettter off would the USA be with a Paul/Gabbard ticket?
But ANYTHING is better than Joe Biden. Literally ANYTHING.
Well...assuming Hillary were dead or incapacitated,
DaVinciCode , 7 hours ago
It's happening. Yugoslavian girl give dire warning to Americans.
This all happened in her country the same way.
PLEASE LISTEN - it is coming to the USA and the West
I agree with the Yugoslav girl's premise that the powers that be have been deceptively
employing a divide-and-conquer strategy to get the American people to fight among themselves
rather than confront their own corrupt government, but I do not buy into the conclusion drawn
that the solution lies in trusting the head of the government (in this case Trump) to do
right by the people.
As George Carlin famously said, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it!" The American
people are not going to be able to fix the problems now confronting them by voting for one
uniparty politician over another any more than the Yugoslav people were
wick7 , 7 hours ago
The Democrats will get their regime change war no matter what. If Biden is elected they'll
continue the Syrian war that has cost 800,000 innocent lives so far. If Trump is elected
they'll try to have one here to take him down.
yojimbo , 7 hours ago
Afghani GDP - $20bn. US military spending - $50bn.
They must have the best services in the world!
yesnomaybe , 7 hours ago
That video clip from the 2016 GOP debate is classic... as Paul questions Trump attacking
personal appearances, Trump flat out denies it, and then proceeds to do just that in his next
breath.
In all seriousness, Rand is a stand up guy and would make a great president.
Maghreb2 , 7 hours ago
Ru Paul has as much chance of stopping this war as Rand Paul. If he was a threat to the
people starting it he would be getting the **** bashed out of him or shot dead by a mad man.
Don't see many people talking about auditing the Fed outside of Texas anymore.
He's got a point. Biden's son is in Ukraine milking it high on crack cocaine like a
senators son should in the new Roman Emperor. Ukrainian color revolution and CIA long war
strategy means he has set up shop there permanently like a little princeling. Same as
princess Kushners wonderful tour of the Middle Eastern courts to meet his boyfriends. Old
days they would both have be poisoned to death or strangled as children for disrespecting the
senate.
Real rules of Eastern European politics are Nationalist winding up dead in dust bins
behind the American Embassy and Russians threatening to switch of the gas and freeze everyone
to death every winter. Footage of hard man dictator Lukashenko showing up at opposition
protests with an assault rifle is broadcast to school children. I'd like to see Hunter Biden
and Jared Kushner show up to something like that.
Truth is Trump is a ******* liar. the Moment they started to shut down Rammenstein airbase
they moved forces close to the Belarus border to pull another color revolution right in front
of Putin. Trump and the Republicans are just stooges for the Zionist mafia. They are playing
war scare but its too piss take for anyone now. Polish and Baltic States are NATO and have
their own prerogative. They just push people closer to war.
Rand Paul should worry about the Civil War that should come after the election.
Aint no senators sons for that game....
DEDA CVETKO , 5 hours ago
Thank you, Rand, for remembering the little Serbia -- twice (in both World Wars) America's
fiercest and most loyal ally, and now a roadkill of the Clinton Foundation and Madeleine
Albright,
the new owner of Kosovo.
The nations that sadistically massacre and dismember their friends and allies do not have
a future, nor the right to claim any.
Scipio Africanuz , 5 hours ago
Again Senator Paul, we don't do self deception..
In almost four years, how many legions have been repatriated home, or how many of the
existing wars have been ended?
All we've observed, is an escalation of hybrid wars, reducing in some, kinetism, and
increasing death tolls via other means, and in some, increased covert kinetism..
Your candidate brazenly murdered a top general of a nation not at war with the US..
Imagine Senator Paul, if Iran had murdered Petraeus, would the US not have declared
war?
That the Iranians didn't significantly escalate, was NOT due to fear, but back channel
advocacy and energetic remonstrations by adult folks..
If you believe Biden is worse than your candidate who's done worse, in terms of brazen law
abrogation, then why aren't you a candidate, or is it that you'd prefer partisanship to
patriotism?
Look within your party for corollary and accomplice warmongers, and leave Biden alone
after all, you do have a rabid warmongering Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton as party
colleagues, no?
Senator Paul, there's principle, character, and integrity and then there's opportunism,
partisanship, and betrayal..
Of nobility..
Anyhow, you're sovereign and thus, fully entitled to your choices, we simply point out
inconsistencies between what you espouse, and what you support..
Character, Senator Paul, is destiny..
Cheers...
Anthraxed , 4 hours ago
Trump has dropped more bombs than Obama at the same time in his term.
You're in complete denial if you think Trump has stopped any of the wars. And yes, he is
expanding the wars to a much larger country.
Trump's first veto was a bill that would have stopped the Yemen war.
Reality is like Cryptonite for Trumptards.
quanttech , 4 hours ago
lol, 10 minutes ago I was being accused of being Antifa, and now I'm a Trumptard.
Definitely doing something right.
Yes, Trump is a war criminal extraordinaire. He dropped a MOAB. He removed controls on
civilian casualties. He dropped 7400+ bombs on Afghanistan in 2019.... 60% of the casualties
were civilians, mostly children.
He also stupidly listened to his generals when they told him to kill Sulemani. BUT... when
the Iranians retaliated (and they DID retaliate, injuring dozens of US soldiers) Trump
de-escalated. Similarly, when the Iranians downed a drone, the generals wanted to retaliate -
Trump asked how many Iranians would die. The generals said 150. Trump said it didn't make
sense to kill 150 people for downing a drone.
Trump is a moron who is completely out of it most of the time. But when he pays attention
for a moment, he's against a a war with Iran.
Now, if I'm a Trumptard, then you're a Hillaryhead. My question to you is... where would
we be if Hillary was president? Answer: at war with Iran. Another question: where will we be
if Biden is president?
Dull Care , 3 hours ago
How much authority do you think Trump has over the foreign policy? Not a rhetorical
question but I have yet to see an American president run for office advocating a more
interventionist foreign policy yet it doesn't change greatly no matter who is in office.
Trump often carries a big stick but he's nowhere near as reckless as his predecessors.
The one thing we know is Trump is hostile to the Chinese government and hasn't turned
around relations with Russia.
quanttech , 1 hour ago
"... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president when you win, you go into this
smoky room with the twelve industrialists capitalists scum-***** who got you in there. And a
big guy with a cigar goes: 'Roll the film.' And it's a shot of the Kennedy Assassination from
an angle you've never seen before - It looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. Then the
screen comes up, and they go to the new president: 'Any questions?'"
- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-Minor (1993)
Observer 2020 , 5 hours ago
The spiritual, moral, ethical, philosophical, intellectual and cultural bankruptcy of
Biden and his fellow death cult reprobates is depthless. One need know nothing more about
them that they have become so detached from reality as to regard abortion, partial birth
abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, generational genocide, genocide, of the white race,
unremitting sociocultural warfare and the balkanization of this nation as being virtues.
Anyone who would even begin to contemplate supporting Biden or any of his fellow Fifth
Columnists should be regarded as being too demented or otherwise Bidenesque to be competent
to vote.
12Doberman , 5 hours ago
Biden has a record showing him to be a Neocon...and that's why we see the neverTrumpers
supporting him.
Musum , 5 hours ago
And Pompeous is 10X worse than Biden. And he serves as Trump's Sec. of State.
Of course, he's just a viceroy serving on behalf of the kosher people.
ted41776 , 8 hours ago
it's not what the president chooses
it's what chooses the president
conraddobler , 8 hours ago
This has lost all it's entertainment value.
Hollywood and the Postman was a more realistic view, in that movie I believe the warlord
was a former copier either salesman or technician, can't remember but it's more likely a guy
like that would have leadership capabilities than these clowns would.
invention13 , 1 hour ago
It saddens me that people can just go about their business in this country without giving
a thought about the men and women who are getting injured and coming home stressed out and
addicted to painkillers. Also that the real motive for continued military involvement in the
ME is that some people are making tons of money off it. We need our own version of Smedley
Butler these days.
It is all decadent beyond belief.
mrjinx007 , 1 hour ago
That MF no good SOB war mongering no good neocon SOB Shawn did everything he could to get
RP to agree with him that we need to continue with the policy of regime change.
Rand just basically told him to shut the f up and stop blowing the Neo-cons' erections. It
was precious. You know how people like this ******* Hannity get their funding from. Deep
state, MIC, and all the f'king Rino's like Tommy Cotton.
gm_general , 2 hours ago
Thanks to Hillary and Obama, Libya is a complete mess and black people are being sold as
slaves there. Let that sink in.
He [Bezos] and people like him are more concerned with maintaining the Dollar as reserve
currency in order to facilitate the continued sell-out of Americans for cheap foreign
manufactured goods, technology sells to China, and their own personal enrichment.
In both cases, the "beef" with Trump is that he's rocking the boat -- both in terms of his
criticism of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama wars for Israel and the Petrodollar, and in terms of
the America First noises he's made. While he's proven to be a fairly reliable Zionist stooge
(although he hasn't started any new wars in the Mideast, and been more of a placeholder), he's
edging a little too close to America First (with his domestic rhetoric and some of his
policies) for comfort.
One of the comments made following Trump's decision to relocate some 12,000 troops from
Germany was made by retired Admiral James ('Zorba') Stavridis, who in 2009-2013 was US Supreme
Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of Nato). He declared
that the action, among other things, "hurts NATO solidarity and is a gift to Putin." This was a
most serious pronouncement, which was echoed
by Republican Senator Mitt Romney, a
rich Republican and
Mormon cleric, who
said the redeployment was a "gift to Russia." These sentiments were well-reported and
endorsed by US media outlets which continue to be relentlessly anti-Russia.
Stavridis is the man who wrote that
the seven-month bombing and rocketing of Libya by the US-Nato military grouping in 2011 "has
rightly been hailed as a model intervention. The alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating
situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive
regime. It succeeded in protecting those civilians and, ultimately, in providing the time and
space necessary for local forces to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi."
On June 22 Human Rights Watch noted that
"over the past years" in Libya their investigators have "documented systematic and gross human
rights and humanitarian law violations
by armed groups on all sides, including torture and ill-treatment, rape and other acts of
sexual violence, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced displacement, unlawful killings and
enforced disappearances
." Amnesty International's current Report also
details the chaos in the shattered country where Nato conducted its "model intervention."
The Libya catastrophe illustrates the desperation of Nato in its continuing search for
international situations in which it might be able to intervene, to try to provide some sort of
justification for its existence. And the calibre of its leadership can be judged from the
pronouncements of such as Stavridis, who was unsurprisingly
considered a possibility for the post of Secretary of State by Donald Trump.
It is not explained how relocation of US troops from Germany could hurt Nato's "solidarity"
but Defence Secretary Esper was more revealing about the situation as he sees it, when
interviewed by balanced and
objective Fox News on August 9. He
declared "we basically are moving troops further east, closer to Russia's border to deter
them. Most of the allies I've either spoken to, heard from or my staff has spoken to, see this
as a good move. It will accomplish all of those objectives that have been laid out. And
frankly, look, we still have 24,000 plus troops in Germany, so it will still be the largest
recipient of US troops. The bottom line is the border has shifted as the alliance has grown."
(It is intriguing that this important policy statement was not covered by US mainstream media
and cannot be found on the Pentagon's Newsroom website -- the "one-stop shop for Defense
Department news and information.")
No matter the spin from the Pentagon and what is now appearing in the US media, Trump's July
29 decision to move troops from Germany had no basis in strategy. It was not the result of a
reappraisal of the regional or wider international situation. And it was not discussed with any
of Washington's allies, causing Nato Secretary General Stoltenberg
to say plaintively that it was "not yet decided how and when this decision will be
implemented."
The BBC reported that "President Donald Trump
said the move was a response to Germany failing to meet Nato targets on defence spending."
Trump was quoted as telling reporters that "We don't want to be the suckers anymore. We're
reducing the force because they're not paying their bills; it's very simple." It could not have
been made clearer than that. The whole charade is the result of Trumpian petulance and has
nothing to do with military strategy, no matter what is belatedly claimed by the Pentagon's
Esper.
The German government was not consulted before Trump's contemptuous announcement, and
defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer
criticised Washington, saying "Nato is not a trade organisation, and security is not a
commodity." But so far as Trump is concerned, security is indeed a commodity that can be traded
as he sees fit, irrespective of relevance to national policy or anything other than his
ego.
In trying to pick up the pieces following Trump's candid explanation of his orders to
"reduce the force" in Germany, the Pentagon has conjured up a jumbled but confrontational plan
intended to convince those who are interested (who do not
include the German public), that it is all part of a grand scheme to extend the power of
the US-Nato alliance. To this end, Esper
announced he is "confident that the alliance will be all the better and stronger for it,"
because the redeployment involves reinforcement of the US military in Poland. He is moving 200
staff of the army's 5 corps to Krakow where, as reported by
Military.com on August 5, "In a ceremony Army Chief of Staff General James McConville
promoted John Kolasheski, the Army's V Corps commander, to the rank of lieutenant general and
officially unfurled the headquarters' flag for the first time on Polish soil."
In addition to Washington's move of the advance HQ of V Corps to Krakow, there is a
agreement that Poland will engage in what the Military Times
reports as "a host of construction projects designed to support more US troops in that
country" and Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Tom Campbell said that the Warsaw government "has
agreed to fund infrastructure and logistical support to US forces," which should please the
White House.
These initiatives are part of the US-Poland Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
completed on August 3, which Esper
stated "will enhance deterrence against Russia, strengthen NATO, reassure our Allies, and
our forward presence in Poland on NATO's eastern flank will improve our strategic and
operational flexibility." Then on August 15 Secretary of State Pompeo visited Poland to
formally
ink the accord which was warmly welcomed by Polish President Duda who recently visited
Trump in Washington.
Duda's declaration
that "our soldiers are going to stand arm-in-arm" is consistent with the existing situation in
Poland, where the Pentagon has other elements already deployed,
including in Redzikowo, where a base is being built for
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence systems, and the Air Force's 52nd Fighter Wing
detachments at Polish Air Force bases at Lask and Miroslawiec, where there is a unit
operating MQ-9
attack drones.
Defence Secretary Esper has emphasised that "the border has shifted as the alliance has
grown" -- and the border to which he refers is that of US-Nato as it moves more menacingly
eastwards. That's the gift that Trump has given Russia.
"... IMO NATO should have ended with the fall of the USSR. It now "confronts" a largely imaginary threat, concocted for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in US government expenditures for defense and supporting the imperial dreams of the neocons. ..."
"... Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? Really? ..."
"... The kind of symmetrical disinterest described in Timothy's article will encourage the end of Atlanticism ..."
"There are, then, two ways in which a Biden presidency will remove the Europeans' veil of
smug superiority. First, he will follow some Trump-era objectives, because that is what
American interests demand, thus showing that Trump was no extremist on China . And second,
where he does change approach, he will expose European indifference to the Western Alliance as
driven, not by distaste for Trump's policies, but by Europe's own cynicism, short-termism and
willingness to freeload off US military budgets.
In both respects, Biden's election will reveal Europe's dirty secret. It was never Donald
Trump who stopped the Europeans being their better selves, taking responsibility for the
security of their own citizens, and protecting long-term Western interests. It was always
Europe itself." Nick Timothy in The Telegraph.
------------
I was struck earlier today by English Outsider's admonition (on SST) directed to
ConfusedPonderer (archetype of the Teutons) in which EO said that it was vainglorious and
vacuous to bitterly claim that the US "occupies" Germany as it did in 1945 while at the same
time relying on US funding of Germany's defense through the USA's enormous military
expenditures.
IMO NATO should have ended with the fall of the USSR. It now "confronts" a largely imaginary
threat, concocted for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in US government expenditures
for defense and supporting the imperial dreams of the neocons.
Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? Really?
The US faces a rapidly escalating political crisis. The losing party in November will
undoubtedly go to the federal courts to claim that their opponents cheated in the process.
These charges will eventually reach SCOTUS. In this environment US interest in European affairs
will decline radically.
The kind of symmetrical disinterest described in Timothy's article will encourage the end of
Atlanticism. pl
"... "When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for biological warfare," ..."
"... "I am not saying that this virus was created by humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's biological defense." ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
The rattling of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S. is becoming
louder, and causing many to ponder if World War III is not far off. There are those in the
international community increasingly alarmed given the COVID situation, the South China Sea
imbroglio, and China's growing threat that they intend to invade and absorb Taiwan into
Communist China within a year. These items have led to the belief that World War III is on the
horizon.
Just recently, Dr.Leonid Roshal, a noted Moscow physician, hostage negotiator, and advisor
to the WHO remarked that the COVID pandemic is a dry run for World War III, and that COVID-19
is practice for future biological warfare. Covid-19 pandemic has functioned as a "rehearsal for
biological warfare," Dr. Roshal also believes that the rapidly-spreading virus was a test for
the world's healthcare systems.
In an interview with Forbes, Professor Roshal, President of the Research Institute of
Emergency Pediatric Surgery and Traumatology, explained that not all nations were ready for a
mass influx of patients, and their lack of preparation has been exposed by the pandemic.
"When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for
biological warfare," he explained. "I am not saying that this virus was created by
humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's
biological defense."
In addition, Hong Kong-based virologist Yan Li-Meng, currently in hiding at an undisclosed
location, claims that the COVID-19 coronavirus came from a People's Liberation Army lab, and
not from a Wuhan wet market as Beijing has claimed. Speaking on a live stream interview on
Taiwan's News Agency Lude Press, she said, "At that time, I clearly assessed that the virus
came from a Chinese Communist Party military lab. The Wuhan wet market was just used as a
decoy." Yan has been in hiding in the U.S. after fleeing Hong Kong in April.
Chinese PLA Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang stated recently that TAIWAN WILL be reunified with
the rest of China - and any attempt by the United States to interfere is futile and dangerous.
Senior Colonel Guoqiang is Deputy Director of the Ministry of Defense's Information Office, and
Chinese Defense Ministry Spokesman. J
entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">
Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I
have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried
to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much
more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these
months dealing with the pandemic.
All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people
who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)
Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I
have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried
to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much
more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these
months dealing with the pandemic.
All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people
who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)
I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some
saber rattling from both sides.
Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They
have an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military
conflict with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the
capability to inflict a black eye.
The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted
their rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush
& Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.
Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He
has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever the
CCP wants.
This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the
Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then
expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye. Huawei
got going by stealing cisco source code and design. https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8
It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and
directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their best
to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an
establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment
politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.
I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some
saber rattling from both sides.
Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They have
an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military conflict
with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the
capability to inflict a black eye.
The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted their
rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush
& Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.
Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He
has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever
the CCP wants.
This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the
Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then
expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye.
Huawei got going by stealing cisco source code and design.
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8
It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and
directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their
best to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an
establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment
politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.
More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News,
and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but
certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one
aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in
Economic power (already the case) and Technology .
There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump.
Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea
2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars want
any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of warfare
is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This
means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from
mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.
There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker,
Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights in
the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and submarines the
US is having issues tracking.
The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk
like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting
accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and
progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.
This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in
Central Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and
Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a losing
proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific, western
Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.
China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.
More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and
the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly
purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect -
China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic
power (already the case) and Technology .
There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump.
Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea
2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars
want any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of
warfare is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics.
This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from
mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.
There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker,
Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights
in the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and
submarines the US is having issues tracking.
The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk
like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting
accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and
progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.
This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in Central
Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and
Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a
losing proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific,
western Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.
China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.
We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having
moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up
most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to
'studies' programs has been a resounding success.
Horatio,
"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..."
Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq,
Afghanistan and Syria.
We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having
moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up
most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students
to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success.
Horatio,
"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..."
Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of
Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.
The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the
U.S.
That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda.
Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..
The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S.
That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda.
Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..
"... Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it. In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels (phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred"). ..."
"... I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore). ..."
"... True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways: ..."
"... While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see here ), most did not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what, "USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different. ..."
Truth be told, most Russian politicians (with the notable exception of the official Kremlin
court jester, Zhirinovskii) and analysts never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend. The
Kremlin was especially cautious, which leads me to believe that the Russian intelligence
analysts did a very good job evaluating Trump's psyche and they quickly figured out that he was
no better than any other US politician.
Right now, I know of no Russian analyst who would predict that relations between the US and
Russia will improve in the foreseeable future. If anything, most are clearly saying that "guys,
we better get used to this" (accusations, sanctions, accusations, sanctions, etc. etc.
etc.).
Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the
pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of
the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued,
subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it.
In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels
(phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred").
Simply put -- there is nothing which Russia can expect from the upcoming election. Nothing
at all. Still, that does not mean that things are not better than 4 or 8 years ago. Let's look
at what changed.
I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war
since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it
was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in
reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and
the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something
which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore).
True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5%
kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk
away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but
as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and
modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways:
A "general" reform of
the Russian armed forces which had to be modernized by about 80%. This part of the reform is
now practically complete. A specific reform to prepare the western and southern military
districts for a major conventional war against the united West (as always in Russian history)
which would involve the First Guards Tank Army and the Russian Airborne Forces. The development
of bleeding-edge weapons systems with no equivalent in the West and which cannot be countered
or defeated; these weapons have had an especially dramatic impact upon First Strike Stability
and upon naval operations.
While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see
here ), most did
not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what,
"USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different.
Russian officials, by the way,
have confirmed that Russia was preparing for war . Heck, the reforms were so profound
and far reaching, that it would have been impossible for the Russians to hide what they were
doing (see here for details; also
please see Andrei Martyanov's excellent primer on the new Russian Navy here ).
While no country is ever truly prepared for war, I would argue that by 2020 the Russians had
reached their goals and that now Russia is fully prepared to handle any conflict the West might
throw at her, ranging from a small border incident somewhere in Central Asia to a full-scaled
war against the US/NATO in Europe .
Folks in the West are now slowly waking up to this new reality (I mentioned some of that
here
), but it is too late. In purely military terms, Russia has now created such a qualitative gap
with the West that the still existing quantitative gap is not sufficient to guarantee a US/NATO
victory. Now some western politicians are starting to seriously freak out (see this lady ,
for example), but most Europeans are coming to terms with two truly horrible
realities:
Russia is much stronger than Europe and, even much worse, Russia will never
attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western russophobes)
As for the obvious solution to this problem, having friendly relations with Russia is simply
unthinkable for those who made their entire careers peddling the Soviet (and now Russian)
threat to the world.
But Russia is changing, albeit maybe too slowly (at least for my taste). As I mentioned last
week, a number of Polish, Ukrainian and Baltic politicians have declared that the Zapad2020
military maneuvers which are supposed to take place in southern Russia and the Caucasus could
be used to prepare an attack on the West (see here
for a rather typical example of this nonsense). In the past, the Kremlin would only have made a
public statement ridiculing this nonsense, but this time around Putin did something different.
Right after he saw the reaction of these politicians, Putin ordered a major and UNSCHEDULED
military readiness exercise which involved no less than 150,000 troops, 400 aircraft
& 100 ships ! The message here was clear:
Yes, we are much more powerful than
you are and No, we are not apologizing for our strength anymore
And, just to make sure that the message is clear, the Russians also tested the readiness of
the Russian Airborne Forces units near the city of Riazan, see for yourself:
This response is, I think, the correct one. Frankly, nobody in the West is listening to what
the Kremlin has to say, so what is the point of making more statements which in the future will
be ignored equally as they have been in the past.
If anything, the slow realization that Russia is more powerful than NATO would be most
helpful in gently prodding EU politicians to change their tune and return back to reality.
Check out this recent video of Sarah Wagenknecht, a leading politician of the German Left and
see for yourself:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7uu5fk
The example of Sahra Wagenknecht is interesting, because she is from Germany, one of the
countries of northern Europe; traditionally, northern European powers have been much more
anti-Russian than southern Europeans, so it is encouraging to see that the anti-Putin and
anti-Russia hysteria is not always being endorsed by everybody.
But if things are very slowly getting better in the EU, in the bad old US of A things are
only getting worse. Even the Republicans are now fully on board the Russia-hating float (right
behind a "gay pride" one I suppose) and they are now contributing their own insanity to the
cause, as this article entitled "
Congressional Republicans: Russia should be designated state sponsor of terror " shows
(designating Russia as a terrorist state is an old idea of the Dems, by the way).
Russian options for the Fall
In truth, Russia does not have any particularly good options towards the US. Both parties
are now fully united in their rabid hatred of Russia (and China too, of course). Furthermore,
while there are many well-funded and virulently anti-Russian organizations in the US (Neo-cons,
Papists, Poles, Masons, Ukrainians, Balts, Ashkenazi Jews, etc.), Russian organizations in the
US like this one , have
very little influence or even relevance.
Banderites marching in the US
However, as the chaos continues to worsen inside the US and as US politicians continue to
alienate pretty much the entire planet, Russia does have a perfect opportunity to weaken the US
grip on Europe. The beauty in the current dynamic is that Russia does not have to do anything
at all (nevermind anything covert or illegal) to help the anti-EU and anti-US forces in Europe:
All she needs to do is to continuously hammer in the following simple message: "the US is
sinking -- do you really want to go down with it?".
There are many opportunities to deliver that message. The current US/Polish efforts to
prevent the EU from enjoying cheap Russian gas might well be the best example of what we could
call "European suicide politics", but there are many, many more.
Truth be told, neither the US nor the EU are a top priority for Russia, at least not in
economic terms. The moral credibility of the West in general can certainly be described as dead
and long gone. As for the West military might, it is only a concern to the degree that western
politicians might be tempted to believe their own propaganda about their military forces being
the best in the history of the galaxy. This is why Russia regularly engages in large surprise
exercises: to prove to the West that the Russian military is fully ready for anything the West
might try. As for the constant move of more and more US/NATO forces closer to the borders of
Russia, they are offensive in political terms, but in military terms, getting closer to Russia
only means that Russia will have more options to destroy you. "Forward deployment" is really a
thing of the past, at least against Russia.
With time, however, and as the US federal center loses even more of its control of the
country, the Kremlin might be well-advised to try to open some venues for "popular diplomacy",
especially with less hostile US states. The weakening of the Executive Branch has already
resulted in US governors playing an increasingly important international role and while this is
not, strictly speaking, legal (only the federal government has the right to engage in foreign
policy), the fact is that this has been going on for years already. Another possible partner
inside the US for Russian firms would be US corporations (especially now that they are hurting
badly). Finally, I think that the Kremlin ought to try to open channels of communication with
the various small political forces in the US which are clearly not buying into the official
propaganda: libertarians, (true) liberals and progressives, paleo-conservatives.
What we are witnessing before our eyes is the collapse of the US federal center. This is a
dangerous and highly unstable moment in our history. But from this crisis opportunities will
arise. The best thing Russia can do now is to simply remain very careful and vigilant and wait
for new forces to appear on the US political scene.
I really agree with you that the “blame Russia” and “blame China”
thing has gotten out of hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems
doubtful to me, as the government is still full of people who are looking out for their own
interests and know that a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance
their interests.
But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that “Russian asset” would become
the all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other
Democrats?
With Republicans I think that “blame China” is stronger. China makes a good
scapegoat for the economic situation in the United States. But convincing the working class
that China is the source of their problems (and that Mr. MAGA is going to solve those
problems by standing up to China) requires ignorance of the crucial facts about the trade
relationship between those two countries.
Namely, that the trade deficit exists only because the Federal Reserve chooses to
create huge amounts of new dollars each year for export to other countries, and it’s
only possible for US exports to fall behind imports so badly (and thus put so many American
laborers out of work) because the Fed is making up the difference by exporting dollars.
Granted, it isn’t a policy that the US can change without harming the interests of its
own upper classes; at the same time, it isn’t a policy that China could force on the US
without the people in charge of the United States wanting it.
This is a topic I’ve dealt with a few times on my own blog.
I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1289724554982629377
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to
US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto
it and getting an American company involved.
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil
to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's
not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the
operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is
re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.
"... Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse. ..."
"... Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. ..."
Mike Pompeo declared the start of a new Cold War with China last week.
...Pompeo's speech was an expression of this unreasonable and unrealistic view, and it is likely to leave most U.S. allies in
East Asia and elsewhere cold. Our allies do not wish for deepening antagonism and strife between the U.S. and China, and if push
comes to shove Washington may find itself without much support in the region. Calling for a "new alliance" to oppose China when Trump
and Pompeo have done such an abysmal job of managing existing alliances in the region just drives home how divorced from reality
the speech was.
... ... ...
The Secretary also relied on a familiar mix of simplistic analysis and threat inflation that he has used so often when talking
about Iran: "It's this ideology, it's this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism."
Pompeo is falling back on two of the stalest talking points from the Cold War. He interprets the behavior of another state primarily
in terms of its official ideology rather than its concrete interests, and he attributes to them a goal of "global hegemony" that
they are not pursuing to make them seem more dangerous and powerful than they are. China does seek to be the leading state in its
own part of the world, but there is no evidence that they aspire to the global domination that Pompeo claims. A hard-line ideologue
and hegemonist himself, Pompeo wrongly assumes that the things that motivate him must also drive the actions of others.
... ... ...
Most of the people on the receiving end of this "engagement" and "empowerment" will likely resent the condescension and interference
from a foreign government in their country's affairs. Even if we assume that the vast majority of people in China might wish for
a radically different government, they are liable to reject U.S. meddling in what they naturally consider to be their business. But,
of course, Pompeo isn't serious about "empowering" the Chinese people, just as he isn't serious about supporting the people of Iran
or Venezuela or any of the other countries on Washington's list of official foes. We can see from the economic wars that the U.S.
has waged on Iran and Venezuela that the administration is only too happy to impoverish and strangle the people they claim to help.
Hard-liners feign concern for the people that they then set out to harm in order to make their aggressive and destructive policies
look better to a Western audience, but they aren't fooling anyone these days.
Pompeo's bombastic, caustic style and his personal lack of credibility make him an unusually poor messenger, and the Trump administration
is uniquely ill-suited to rally a group of states in common cause. But the main problem with the policy Pompeo promotes is that an
intensifying rivalry with China is not in the American interest. The U.S. has found that it is virtually impossible to change the
behavior of adversaries when that behavior concerns what they believe to be their core security interests. ...
I was reading the words that Nixon wrote about China that Pompeo quoted and it occurred to me that if you took out the word
"China" and replaced it with the "United States" then that statement would be completely accurate in describing how America acts
in the world. In OTW, it's "the Pot calling the Kettle black".
I wouldn't enjoin the American people with our out-of-touch, out-of-control and (In the cases of Hillary, Waters, Biden and
Pelosi..) out of their minds government.
We're so conditioned to global conflicts now, it's merely a matter of the U.S. population learning how to spell the names of
foreign leaders and their capitals marked for "Regime Changes", while crossing our fingers in hopes that our buildings will not
again be subjected to airliner collisions and collapses in the wake of this aggression.
It would behoove Americans to start pulling on the reins of our bellicose administrations to confine their authority and actions
to benefit our citizens.
Your comment that we have coexisted with China for 70 years is not quite accurate. There was this little dust-up called the
Korean Conflict as I recall...
The communist Chinese can control our movie, sports, news and entertainment industries by denying them access to China if they
don't show China in a positive light or if they show China in a negative life...
You define with accuracy the core tenets of Socialists. Once a government expands to the proportions needed to implement that
form of socioeconomic leadership, the character of those leaders becomes tyrannical, while they target segments of their populations
for reeducation or elimination. (Abortions would fit that scenario nicely..) Obama was just such a leader, and had he somehow
been able to ignore term limits, his administration would have resembled those of any Socialist State.
All of the policies you mention above would achieve absolutely nothing while inflaming conflict - thus increasingly the problems
you outline. These hawkish responses prove the point...the issue isn't that there are or aren't issues, but that the US has lost
the ability to have real discussions of these issues with world players and allies.
Much of that is because Trump patently hasn't the temperament, sophistication, or intelligence for discussion and diplomacy
- this was proven again and again in the zero sum ineptitude of his private ventures.
The rot of that malignant ineptitude flows down from the head and into every aspect of government, both domestic and foreign.
Thus we see his response to every domestic crisis is to inflame division. And the same in the foreign theater. He cannot be gotten
rid of soon enough.
I don't believe our government is so foolish as to contemplate a shooting war with the Chinese. They have nuclear warheads.
Their populations are fanatics when it comes to conflicts against them...
Men will not fight another war nor will women leave their jobs when the men return from war as they did with WWII. There will
be no war in Europe simply because Europe (including Russia) is depopulating at such a rapid rate they cant afford a losing more
of their population through conflict. I dont see a shooting war with China either. I think that is the purpose of the tariffs
and detachment of economies. US intelligence says that China does not want war with the US either. I don't think there is any
country that would jump to a pre-emptive nuclear attack in case of a hot war. They dont have the air force superiority or the
Navy or superiority in space yet.
Its not the Chinese way. The Chinese wait until they have superiority then they act otherwise they like to fly below the radar
and get away with as much espionage and intimidation as possible. The opium wars came about because of the Chinese culture of
trade exporting much but importing little thus creating a trade imbalance and indebting their trading partners.
Chinese culture has many forms of achieving superiority without restoring to conflict. The think tanks and experts are predicting
that Xi may be pushed out of power by his competitors in the politburo which could defuse the situation. I don't think it will
change detaching the economies. After COVID, countries are shifting focus from lowest cost possible to lowest cost and lowest
risk possible.
That's why medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, etc are either moving out of China or moving part of their production to the
US or they can win against a declining, an indebted power, an over stretched power, etc. Take a lesson with Russia and the US.
Russia did not confront the US directly. It used proxies elsewhere around the world. Russia did not want a war with NATO or with
the US. That balance kept the peace. If you want peace with China then there is going to have to be some sort of parity or superiority
of China's neighbors via an alliance and/or superiority in trade/technology/economy. If you want war then you pacify and try to
avoid war leaving a strategic space where your competitor thinks they can win. To avoid war, you need parity or superiority.
Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any
other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse.
The US itself is not a democracy, but as B. Franklin put it from the beginning, is a Republic, which from the birth was
design to promote and preserve the haves, the existing Oligarchy. While they looked for a balance of power in order to prevent
the rise of an autocrat (the other bugbear of Oligarchy), the main fear of the framers was democracy and the threat of the mob
voting for re-distribution...
The success of the socialist state of China is an indication of what might have happened if the socialist block in ensemble
wouldn't have suffered the containment enforced by the US. Given the ability to engage in normal economic intercourse with the
world, China developed and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Vietnam is another example. But look what is happening
with Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela. It is not the socialist system per se, but the blockade of those countries and the crushing
economic war that ruins them.
Fortunately, Russia has learned from the mistakes of the past.
It is good that the cards are on the table to see that US Oligarchy wants to rule everything, because it is a corrupting way
of life and mind. Because of this, the march for more open societies, with more, no less democracy, and people representation
and input is halted.
And of course, in this new Cold War, a lot of civil liberties and freedom of speech will be curtailed. In my neck of the woods
we have already experienced individuals assaulting people of Chinese ethnicity. Way to go America!
Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and
then nuke any survivors. He, along with Barr, Graham, and the rest of the Trump circus, are a cautionary tale for what happens
to governments that let ideologues deliberately divorced from reality run a country. They've turned what was once the United States
from a superpower to a failed state in an absurdly short period of time. History will be far less kind to these political Bernie
Madoffs than to the original financial exemplar.
Wars ain't nothing to bandy about among administration subordinates. Pompeo is not supposed to be declaring wars--hot or cold.
Wars cost big money, lives and property. Only the most grave threats against our country should prompt our leaders to even consider
conflicts, much less initiate them. The American people cannot just sit back and absorb such profound adjustments to our national
security posture and defense expenditures being unilaterally decided by Washington. It is also a condition of conflicts that our
civil rights will be under increased constraints. I chuckled a little when China was listed as our 'new' foe. We won't fight the
Chinese because we'll have another Vietnam War on our hands. Our troops aren't used to our enemies fighting back. They've been
deployed into banana wars against poorly trained and ill equipped armies of Middle East camel holes. The U.S. Armed Forces' new
culture, consisting of socially-engineered, politically-corrected soldiers-of-tolerance have yet to confront true fanatics. These
facts were known waaaaay back during our Korean War Adventure.
I've always said that if the Chinese are good at anything, it's making more Chinese.
New Cold War? Bring it on. Competition is good. A strong rival is desired. Instead of a struggle over Ideology, this will be
a Civilizational struggle, Western Civilization VS Central Civilization, liberal democracy VS Confucian/Legalist authoritarianism,
Euro-America VS the Han Chinese. But this time, is America up to the tast?
During the Cold War we were led by 'Greatest Generation' who lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II,
is today's America of Facebook, Twitter, conspiracy theories, selfies, BLM, safe spaces, Diversity, mass immigration and Woke
political correctness run amok up to the task?
While China is a predator, homogeneous, nationalist, revanchist and bent on returning to the glory it thinks it deserves. All
I can say is, thank god for nuclear weapons and the Chinese Communist Party for keeping a short leash on the patriotic passions
of the Han Chinese.
We had "an alliance of democracies" in the TPP which was developed to counter China. Of course, it handed much of our domestic
sovereignty over to multinational corporations, but that's what you can expect from a corporatist like Obama. Still, might have
been better than this.
I wonder if the Nixon family knew in advance that Pompeo was going to trash Richard Nixon's greatest legacy?
A war between China and the U.S. would not simply be costly for the US - it could end in the destruction of the world as we
know it if it turns nuclear. Trump and Pompeo are sociopathic madman. I would not put it past Trump to use Nukes against China.
He is just that stupid and evil.
President Nixon's détente with China had an important geopolitical consideration, leverage on Russia. "We're using the China
thaw to get the Russians shook", he is quoted to have said. There is much talk among hawks these days of a "new Cold War", with
that the confidence it will end like the first one: victory for the west and no nuclear annihilation. But this is a danger illusion:
today America is in a hegemonic struggle with China for global dominance. It seems neither side can back down. The present crisis
is like the Cold War in one crucial sense – world war must be avoided at all costs. The powers are not heeding the warning of
history.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
When it comes to debate about US military policy, the 2020 presidential election campaign is
so far looking very similar to that of 2016. Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the
strongest military in the world," promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our
troops for the challenges of the next century, not the last one."
In the White House, President Trump is repeating the kind of anti-interventionist head
feints that won him votes four years ago against a hawkish Hillary Clinton. In his recent
graduation address at West Point, Trump re-cycled applause lines from 2016 about "ending an era
of endless wars" as well as America's role as "policeman of the world."
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military presence
abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As military
historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
When the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year came before Congress
this summer, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a modest 10 percent reduction in military spending
so $70 billion could be re-directed to domestic programs. Representative Barbara Lee introduced
a House resolution calling for $350 billion worth of DOD cuts. Neither proposal has gained much
traction, even among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee
just
voted 56 to 0 to spend $740. 5 billion on the Pentagon in the coming year, prefiguring the
outcome of upcoming votes by the full House and Senate.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance. In the never-ending work of building a stronger anti-war
movement, Pentagon critics, with military credentials, are invaluable allies. Daniel Sjursen, a
37-year old veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is one such a critic. Inspired in part by
the much-published Bacevich, Sjursen has just written a new book called Patriotic Dissent:
America in the Age of Endless War (Heyday Books)
Patriotic Dissent is a short volume, just 141 pages, but it packs the same kind of punch as
Howard Zinn's classic 1967 polemic, Vietnam: The Logic of
Withdrawal . Like Zinn, who became a popular historian after his service in World War II,
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment, and the
military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry president." His
appeal to the conscience of fellow soldiers, veterans, and civilians is rooted in the unusual
arc of an eighteen-year military career. His powerful voice, political insights, and painful
personal reflections offer a timely reminder of how costly, wasteful, and disastrous our post
9/11 wars have been.
Sjursen has the distinction of being a graduate of West Point, an institution that produces
few political dissenters. He grew up in a fire-fighter family on working class Staten Island.
Even before enrolling at the Academy at age 17, he was no stranger to what he calls
"deep-seated toxically masculine patriotism." As a newly commissioned officer in 2005, he was
still a "burgeoning neo-conservative and George W. Bush admirer" and definitely not, he
reports, any kind of "defeatist liberal, pacifist, or dissenter."
"The horror, the futility, the farce of that war was the turning point in my life,"
Sjursen writes in Patriotic Dissent .
When he returned, at age 24, from his "brutal, ghastly deployment" as a platoon leader, he
"knew that the war was built on lies, ill-advised, illegal, and immoral." This "unexpected,
undesired realization generated profound doubts about the course and nature of the entire
American enterprise in the Greater Middle East -- what was then unapologetically labeled the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."
A Professional Soldier
By the time Sjursen landed in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in early 2011, he had been
promoted to captain but "no longer believed in anything we were doing."
He was, he confesses, "simply a professional soldier -- a mercenary, really -- on a
mandatory mission I couldn't avoid. Three more of my soldiers died, thirty-plus were wounded,
including a triple amputee, and another over-dosed on pain meds after our return."
Despite his disillusionment, Sjursen had long dreamed of returning to West Point to teach
history. He applied for and won that highly competitive assignment, which meant the Army had to
send him to grad school first. He ended up getting credentialed, while living out of uniform,
in the "People's Republic of Lawrence, Kansas, a progressive oasis in an intolerant, militarist
sea of Republican red." During his studies at the state university, Sjursen found an
intellectual framework for his "own doubts about and opposition to US foreign policy." He
completed his first book, Ghost Riders , which combines personal memoir with counter-insurgency
critique. Amazingly enough, it was published in 2015, while he was still on active duty, but
with "almost no blowback" from superior officers.
Before retiring as a major four years later, Sjursen pushed the envelope further, by writing
more than 100 critical articles for TomDispatch and other civilian publications. He was no
longer at West Point so that body of work triggered "a grueling, stressful, and scary
four-month investigation"by the brass at Fort Leavenworth, during which the author was
subjected to "a non-publication order." At risk were his career, military pension, and
benefits. He ended up receiving only a verbal admonishment for violating a Pentagon rule
against publishing words "contemptuous of the President of the United States." His "PTSD and
co-occurring diagnoses" helped him qualify for a medical retirement last year.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit one
who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With several
left-leaning comrades, he started Fortress on A Hill, a lively podcast about military affairs
and veterans' issues. He's a frequent, funny, and always well-informed guest on progressive
radio and cable-TV shows, as well as a contributing editor at Antiwar.com , and a contributor to a host of mainstream liberal
publications. This year, the Lannan Foundation made him a cultural freedom fellow.
In Patriotic Dissent , Sjursen not only recounts his own personal trajectory from military
service to peace activism. He shows how that intellectual journey has been informed by reading
and thinking about US history, the relationship between civil society and military culture, the
meaning of patriotism, and the price of dissent.
One historical figure he admires is Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient
of two Medals of Honor for service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler
sided with the poor and working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I
bonus payments. And he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that
"war is just a racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big
Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Reframing DissentNEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Sjursen contrasts Butler's anti-interventionist whistle-blowing, nearly a century ago, with
the silence of high-ranking veterans today after "nineteen years of ill-advised, remarkably
unsuccessful American wars." Among friends and former West Point classmates, he knows many
still serving who "obediently resign themselves to continued combat deployments" because they
long ago "stopped asking questions about their own role in perpetuating and enabling a
counter-productive, inertia-driven warfare state."
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About Face:
Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our Troops Home.
US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right. Each in, its own way, seeks to
"reframe dissent, against empire and endless war, as the truest form of patriotism." But
actually taming the military-industrial complex will require "big-tent, intersectional action
from civilian and soldier alike," on a much larger scale. One obstacle to that, he believes, is
the societal divide between the "vast majority of citizens who have chosen not to serve" in the
military and the "one percent of their fellow citizens on active duty," who then become part of
"an increasingly insular, disconnected, and sometimes sententious post-9/11 veteran
community."
Not many on the left favor a return to conscription.
But Sjursen makes it clear there's been a downside to the U.S. replacing "citizen
soldiering" with "a tiny professional warrior caste," created in response to draft-driven
dissent against the Vietnam War, inside and outside the military. As he observes:
"Nothing so motivates a young adult to follow foreign policy, to weigh the advisability or
morality of an ongoing war as the possibility of having to put 'skin in the game.' Without at
least the potential requirement to serve in the military and in one of America's now
countless wars, an entire generation -- or really two, since President Nixon ended the draft
in 1973–has had the luxury of ignoring the ills of U.S. foreign policy, to distance
themselves from its reality ."
At a time when the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and
anti-imperial wave" sweeping over the country, we have instead a "civil-military" gap that,
Sjursen believes, has "stifled antiwar and anti-imperial dissent and seemingly will continue to
do so." That's why his own mission is to find more "socially conscious veterans of these
endless, fruitless wars" who are willing to "step up and form a vanguard of sorts for
revitalized patriotic dissent." Readers of Sjursen's book, whether new recruits to that
vanguard or longtime peace activists, will find Patriotic Dissent to be an invaluable
educational tool. It should be required reading in progressive study groups, high school and
college history classes, and book clubs across the country . Let's hope that the author's
willingness to take personal risks, re-think his view of the world, and then work to change it
will inspire many others, in uniform and out.
Do we need to be in 160 countries with our military and can we afford it?
Cat Daddy , 1 hour ago
I am all for bringing the troops home except for this one unnerving truth; nature abhors a
vacuum, specifically, when we pull out, China moves in. A world dominated by the CCP will be
a dangerous place to be. When we leave, we will need to make sure our bases are safely in the
hands of our friends.
dogbert8 , 1 hour ago
War is effectively the way the U.S. has done business since the Spanish American War, our
first imperial conquests. War is how we ensure big business has the materials and markets
they demand in return for their support of political parties and candidates. War is the only
area left with opportunities for growth and profit. Don't think for a minute that TPTB will
ever let us stop waging war to get what we (they) want.
TheLastMan , 2 hours ago
If you are new to zh all you need to do is study PNAC and the related nature of all
parties to understand the criminality of USA militarization and for whose benefit it
serves
Anonymous IX , 2 hours ago
I have written many times on this platform the exact same sentiments.
I am most disheartened by the COVID + Antifa/BLM Riots because of the facts this author
presents.
We are distracted with emotional and highly volatile MASSIVELY PROPAGANDIZED stories by
MSM (I don't watch) while the real problem in the world is as the author describes above.
We are war-mongering nation who needs to bring our troops home and disband over half of
our overseas installations and bases.
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the citizens
of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
Yet, we run around arguing about masks and who can go into a restaurant or toppling
statutes and throwing mortar-type fireworks at federal officers. This is what we do instead
of facing a real problem which is that we are war-mongering nation with no moral/ethical
conscience. These scraggily bearded white Antifas need to WTFU and realize who their true
enemy.
Oh, wait. They work for the true enemy! Get it?
Max21c , 1 hour ago
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the
citizens of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
I don't agree with the economic sanctions nonsense thing as they seem to be more of a
crutch for people that are not any good at planning, strategy, analytical thinking, critical
thinking, strategic thinking, and lack much in the way of talent or creativity or
intellectual acumen or intellectual skills...I believe there's around just shy of 10k
economic sanctions by Washington...
But the USA does have the right to receive or refuse to receive foreign Ambassadors and
Consuls and to recognize or not recognize other nations governments thus it does have some
degrees of the right to not trade or engage in commerce with other nations to a certain
extent... per imports and exports... et cetera... though it's not necessarily an absolute
right or power
IronForge , 2 hours ago
Sjursen may admire General Butler; but he doesn't seem to know that several of the
General's Descendants Served in the US Military.
Sjursen isn't Butler. The General Prevented a Coup in his Time.
The USA are a Hegemony whose KleptOchlarchs overtook the Original Constitutional
Republic.
PetroUSD, MIC, Corporate Expansion-Conquest, AgriGMO, and Pharma Interests Span the
Globe.
Wars are Rackets; and Societies to Nation-States have waged them over Real Estate, Natural
Resources, Trade Routes, Industrial Capacity, Slavery, Suppresive Spite,
Religious/Ideological Zeal, Economic Preservation, and Profiteering Greed.
YET, Militaries are still formed by Nation-States to Survive and for Some - Thrive above
such Competitive Existenstential Threats.
*****
The Hegemony are running up against New Shifts in Global Power, Systems, and Influences;
and are about to Lose their Unilateral Advantages. The Hegemon themselves may suffer Societal
Collapses Within.
Sjursen should read up on Chalmers Johnson. Instead of trying to Coordinate Ineffective
Peace Demonstrations, the Entire Voting/Political Contribution/Candidacy Schemes should be
Separated from the Oligarchy of Plutocrats and Corporate/Political KleptOchlarchs.
Without Bringing the Votes back to the Collective Hands of Citizenry Interests First and
Foremost, the Republic are Forever Conquered; and the Ethical may have to resort to
Emigration and/or Secession.
Ink Pusher , 2 hours ago
Nobody rides for free,there's always a cost and those who can't pay in bullion will often
pay in bodily fluids of one form or another.
Profiteers that create warfare for profit are simply parasitical criminals and should not
be considered a "special breed" when weighed upon the Scales of Justice.
gzorp , 2 hours ago
Read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert A Heinlein (1959) pay especial attention to the
"History and Moral Philosophy" courses... that's where his predictions for the future course
of 'America's' future appear.... rather accurately. Heinlein was a 1930's graduate of
Annapolis (Navy for you dindus and nohabs).....
A DUDE , 2 hours ago
t's not just the war machine but the entire system, the corporatocracy, of which the MIC
is a part. And there is no way to change the system from within the system because whatever
is anti-establishment becomes absorbed and neutered and part of the system.
Tulsi Gabbard ran on anti interventionism foreign policy.
Look how fast the DNC disappeared her.
Of course destroying Kamala Harris in a debate and going after the ancient evil Hitlery
sealed her fate.
BarkingWolf , 2 hours ago
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military
presence abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As
military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
Now wait just a minute there mister, that sounds like criticism of the Donald John PBUH
PBUH PBUH ... you can't do that ... the cult followers will call you a leftist and a commie
if you point out stuff like that even if it is objectively true! That's strike one, punk.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance.
November doesn't have anything to do with anything really. The appeal to conscience is
wasted. The appeal would be better spent on removing the political class that is on the AIPAC
dole and have dual citizenship in a foreign country in the ME while pretending to serve
America while they are members of Congress. That's only the tip of the spear ... and that is
a nonstarter from the get go.
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment,
and the military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry
president."
I don't think Trump is necessarily a war power hungry president. While it is true that we
have not withdrawn from Syria and basically stole their oil as Trump has repeated promised he
would do, it is also true that Trump has yet to deliver Israels war with Iran and in fact had
called back an invasion of Iran ten minutes before a flotilla of US warships was about to set
sail to ignite such an invasion leaving Tel Aviv not only aggrieved, but angry as well.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit
one who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With
several left-leaning comrades ...
Okay, this is where you are starting to lose me .... i't like listening to a concert and
suddenly the music is hitting sour notes that are off key, off tempo, and don't seem to fit
somehow.
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor for
service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler sided with the poor and
working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I bonus payments. And
he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that "war is just a
racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for
Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Butler was correct, war especially nowadays, is a racket that makes rich people who never
seem to get their hands dirty, even richer. As one grunt put it long ago, "it's a dirty job,
but somebody has to do it."
That "somebody" is going to be the kids of the little people (the real high-class
muscle-men ) who are hated by their political class overlords even as the political class are
worshipped as gods.
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About
Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our
Troops Home. US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right.
The problem here is that the so-called "left" brand has always been about war and the
capitalism of death.
The Democrat party is really the group that started the American civil war for instance,
they are the ones behind legacy of Eugenists like Margaret Sanger who was a card carrying
Socialist who founded the child murder mill known today as Planned Parenthood that sadly
still exists under Trump but has turned into the industrialized slaughter of children ...even
after birth so that their organs can be "harvested" for profit.
Sjursen's affinity for "the left" as saintly purveyors of peace, goodness, love, and life
strikes me as rather disingenuous. Then he seems to argue if I read the analysis correctly
that conscription will somehow be the panacea for the insatiable appetite for war?
One false flag such as The Gulf of Tonkin or 911 or even Perl Harbor or the Sinking of the
Lusitania or the assassination of an Arch Duke ... is all that is really needed to arouse the
unbridled hoards to march off to battle with almost erotic enthusiasm -the political class
KNOWS IT!
Amendment X , 2 hours ago
And don't forget President Wilson (D) who was re-elected on the platform "He kept us out
of the war" only to drag U.S. into the hopeless European Monarchary driven WWI.
11b40 , 1 hour ago
Yo! Low class muscle man here, and I have to agree with bringing back the draft. It should
never have been eliminated, and is the root of the golbalists abiity to keep us in
Afghanistan, and other parts of the ME, for going on 20 years.
Skin in the game. It means literally everything. As noted we now have 2 generations of men
who never had to give much thought at all to what's happening around the world, and how
America is involved....and look at the results. It would be a much different situation today
if all those 18 year olds had to face the draft board with an unforgiving lottery.
Yes, one false falg can whip up the country to a war time fever pitch, but unless there is
a real, serious threat, the fever cannot be maintained. The 1969 draft lottery caught me when
I stayed out the first semester of my senior year. Didn't want to go, but accepted my fate
and did the best job I could to stay alive and keep those around me as safe as possible. In
1966, I was in favor of the war, and was about to go Green Beret on the buddy system. We were
going to grease gooks with all the enthusiasm of John Wayne. My old man, an artillery 1st Sgt
at the time in Germany, talked me out of it. More like get your *** on a plane back to the
States and into college, befroe i kick it up around your shouders. A WW2 & Korea vet, he
told me then it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The point is, when kids are getting drafted, Mom's, Dad's, and everyone else concerned
with the safety of their friends & relatives, start paying attention and asking hard
questions of politicians. Using Afghanistan as an example, we would have been on the way out
by the 2004 election cycle, or at max before the next one in 2008. That was 12 years ago, and
we are still there.
I addition, the reason we went would have been more closely examined, and there may have
been a real investigtion into 9/11. Plus, I am convinced that serving your country makes for
a better all around citizen, and God knows, we need better citizens.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo started new cold war with China, but have no way to back up their threats
and win it!! When i was in Kosovo peace corps i heard so many stories from Albanian who were
blamed to be Russian or American spy because of double cold war against Albania. Trump and
Pompeo just gave excuse to Xi to blame anyone who protest as American spy. BBC were showing
China's broadcast of the protests in Oregon to Hong Kong with subtitle "Do you really want
American democracy?", LMFAO
Max21c , 2 hours ago
Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the strongest military in the world,"
promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the
next century, not the last one."
The United States shall continue to have a weak military until it starts to fix its
foreign policy and diplomacy. You cannot have the strongest military in the world if you lack
a good foreign policy and good diplomacy. Brains are a lot more important than battleships,
battalions, bullets, barrels, or bombs. Get a frickin' clue you friggin' Washington
morons.
Washington is weak because they are dumb. Blind, deaf, and dumb.
Heroic Couplet , 2 hours ago
Too little, too late. Great ad for a book that will be forgotten in a week. Read Bolton's
book. The minute Trump tries to reduce troops, Bolton is right there, saying "No, we can't
move troops to the perimeter. No, we can't move troops from barracks to tents at the
perimeter." Who needs AI?
Erik Prince wrote 3.5 years ago that 4th gen warfare consists of cyberwarfare and
bio-weapons. The US military is fooked. There's probably an interesting book to be
researched: How do Republicans feel about contracting COVID-19 after listening to Trump
fumble?
ChecksandBalances , 3 hours ago
Blame the voters. Run on a platform to reduce military and police spending. See how many
of those lose. Probably all of them. You have to stop feeding the beast. This is a slogan
Trump correctly said but as usual didn't actually mean. We should cut all military and police
spending by 1/2 and then take the remaining money and build a smarter, more efficient
military and police force.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
It's not just the "Deep State." It's Washingtonians overall. It's Deep Crazy. They're all
Deep Crazy! They're nuts. And the rare exceptions that may know better and have enough common
sense to know its wrong to sick the secret police on innocent American civilians aren't going
to say anything or do anything to stop it. The few that know better in foreign policy aren't
going to say anything or do anything against the new Cold Wars on the Eastern Front against
China or on the Western Front against Russia since they're not willing to go up against the
Regime. So the Regimists know they have carte blanche to persecute or terrorize or go after
any that stand in their way. This is how tyrannies and police states operate. It's the nature
of the beast. At a minimum they brow beat people into submission. People don't want to stick
their neck out and risk going up against the Regime and risk losing to the Regime, its secret
police, and the powers that be. They shy away from anything that would bring the Regime and
its secret police and its radicals, extremists, fanatics, and zealots their way.
nonkjo , 4 hours ago
It's okay to be against "forever war" and still not have to be a progressive douchbag.
Sjursen is an unprincipled ******** artist. He leaves Iraq disillusioned as a lieutenant
but sticks around long enough for them to pay for his grad school and give him some sweet
"resume building" experiences that he can stand on to sell books? FYI, from commissioning
time as a second lieutenant to promotion to captain is 3 years...that means Sjusen was so
disillusioned that he decided to stick around for 12 more years which is about 9 years longer
than he actually needed to as an Academy grad (he only had to serve 6 unless he elected to go
to grad school).
The bottom line is Sjusen capitalizes on people not knowing how the military works. That
is, that his own self-interest far outweighs his the principles he espouses. Typical leftist
hypoctite.
Max21c , 4 hours ago
...the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and anti-imperial
wave ..."
Perhaps the USA just needs a better foreign policy. Though we all know that's not going to
happen with the flaky screwballs of Washington and the flaky screwballs in the Pentagon, CIA,
State Department, foreign policy establishment, think tanks et cetera.
Minor technical point: the time for the "anti-imperial wave" was before Washingtonians
destroyed much of the world and created their strategic blunders and disastrous foreign
policy. You folks all went along with this nonsense and now you have your quagmires, forever
wars, and numerous trouble spots that have popped up here and there along the way to
boot.
Pottery barn rule: you broke it and you own it and it's yours...Ma'am please pay at the
register on the way out...Sorry Ma'am there's no more free gluing...though the gluing
specialist may be in on the third Thursday this month though it's usually the second Tuesday
each month...
Contemporaneously, in the same vein the American public has been brainwashed into going
along with the new Cold Wars on the Western Front against Moscow and the even newer Cold War
on the Eastern Front against Beijing. It's like P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every
minute," and you fools in the American public just keep buying right in to the brainwashing.
They're now successfully indoctrinating you into buying into their new Cold Wars with Russia
and China. The Cold War on the Eastern Front versus Peking is more getting more fanciful
attentions at the moment and the Cold War on the Western Front has temporarily been relegated
to the back burner but they'll move the Western Front Cold War from simmer to boil over
whenever it suits their needs. It's just a rendition of the Oceania has always been at war
with East Asia and Eurasia is our friend are just gameplays right out of George Orwell's
1984.
Most of the quagmires can be fixed to a certain extent by applying some cement and
engineering to the quicksand and many of the trouble spots can become more settled and less
unstable if not stable in some instances. Even some of the more serious strategic problems
like the South China Sea, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and potential Iranian
nuclear weapons development can still be resolved through peaceful strategies and
solutions.
In re sum, while I won't disparage a peace movement I do not believe it is either
necessary nor proper simply because you will not solve anything through a peace movement. The
sine qua non or quintessential element is simply to end one of these wars successfully
through a peaceful diplomatic solution or solve one of these serious foreign policy problems
through diplomacy which is something that hasn't been the norm since the downfall of the
Berlin Wall, is no longer in favor, and which is the necessary element to prove that peace
can be achieved through strategy and diplomacy and thereby change the course of the country's
future.
In foreign affairs the foreign policy establishment has its pattern of behavior and it is
that pattern of behavior that has to be changed. It's the mindset of the Washingtonians &
elites that has to be changed. Just taking to the streets won't really change their ways or
their beliefs for any significant part of the duration. They may pay lip service to peace
& diplomacy but it won't win out in their minds in the long run. They are so warped in
their views and beliefs that it'll have little or no effect over the long haul. As soon as
the protests dissipate they'll be right back at it, back to their bad ways and bad
behavior.
Son of Captain Nemo , 4 hours ago
For the past 19 years... And as Anti-War as you will ever get!...
Was it George Carlin that said " if voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it "
? The only way to stop these forever wars is for people to stop joining the military. Parents
should teach their children that joining the military and trotting off to some country to
fight a war for the elite is not being patriotic . I was in the military from 1964 -1968.
When Lyndon Johnson became president he drug out the Vietnam war as long as he could. Oh !
Lady Byrd Johnson bought Decon Company [ rat poison ] when most people never heard of it.
Johnson bought this rat poison , government paid for ,at an inflated price . Sent ship loads
of it to Vietnam .Never mind all the Americans and so called enemy killed.. Jane Fonda ,
Hanoi Jane , was really a hero who helped save countless lives by helping to end the war.
Tommy and **** Smothers , Smother Brothers , spoke out against the war . Our government had
them black balled from TV. Our government is probably as corrupt as any other country.
A piece of irony, one of our greatest generals was Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme
Commander in WWII and two term president. He kept the peace for almost 10 years and warned
Americans to beware of the "military-industrial complex." Most military men never want war,
they just make sure they are ready if it comes. We have had the military industrial complex
for way too long, it needs to be reduced and we need more generals to run for president, Gen.
Flynn maybe? I'll also take Schwartzkoff.
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
captain noob , 7 hours ago
Capitalism has no morals
Profit is the driving force of every single thing
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
Chief Joesph , 7 hours ago
After what General Smedley Butler had to say and warned us about, here we are, 90 years
later, doing the very same thing. Goes to show how utterly dumb, unprogressive, sheepish, and
Medieval Americans really are. And you thought this is what makes America Great????
cowboyted , 8 hours ago
The U.S. Constitution provides for a "national defense." Yet, the last time we were
attacked by a foreign nation was on Dec. 7, 1941 in which, the Congress declared war on
Japan. Yet, in the past 100 years our country's leaders have convinced Americans that we can
wage war if the issue concerns our "national INTEREST." This is wrong and needs to be deleted
and replaced with our Constitution's language. Also, Congress is the ONLY Constitutional
authority to declare war, not the executive branch. Too many countries, including the U.S.,
spend too much money preparing for war on levels of destruction that are unnecessary. We must
attain a new paradigm with leading countries to achieve a mutual understanding that the
people of the world are better off with jobs, food, families, peace, and a chance at a better
life, filled with hope, faith, and flourishing communities. Things have to change.
transcendent_wannabe , 8 hours ago
I have to agree in sentiment with the author, but the reality of humans on earth almost
demands constant war, it is the price we pay for the modern city lifestyle. There are various
reasons.
1. Ever since WW1, the country has become citified, and the old peaceful country farm life
was replaced with the rat race of industrial production. Without war, there is no need for
the level of industrial production required to give full employment to the overpopulated
cities. People will scream for war and jingoism when they have no city jobs. How do you deal
with that? Sure, War is a Racket, but so far a necessary racket.
2. Every 20 years the military needs a real shooting war to battle test its upcoming
soldiers and new equipment. Now the battles are against insurgencies... door-to-door in
cities and ghettos, and new tactics need to be field tested. If the military goes more than
20 years without a real shooting war, they lose the real men, the sargeant majors, who just
become fat pot bellied desk personel without the adrenaline of a real fight.
3. Humans inately like to fight. Even children, boys wrestle, girls taunt one another.
There is no way discovered yet to keep people from turning violent in their attempts to steal
what others have, or to gain dominance thru physical intimidation. Without war, gangs will
form and fight over territorial boundaries. There is no escaping it.
4. Earth is where the battle field is, Battlefield Earth. There is no fighting allowed in
heaven, so Earth is where souls come to fight. Nobody on earth likes it, but fighting and war
is here to stay, and you should really use this life to find out how to transcend earth and
get to a place where war is not needed or allowed, like heaven or Valhalla.
Tortuga , 8 hours ago
So. He thinks the crooked, grifting, regressive hate US murdering dim pustules aren't the
warmongering, globalist, hate US, crooked, grifting, murdering republicrats. What a mo
ron.
HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago
Real conservatives were always against foreign intervention. It was the Left that embraced
foreign wars (Wilson / Roosevelt / Truman / Johnson).
messystateofaffairs , 8 hours ago
From my perspective being a professional goon to serve the greater glory of international
criminals, is, aside from having to avoid the mirror, way too much hard and dangerous work
for the money. As a civilian of a society run by criminals on criminal imperialist
principles, I have no literal PTSD type of skin in that filthy game, but like most citizens,
knowing and unknowing, I do swim in that sewer everyday, doing my best to avoid bumping into
the larger turds. My "patriotism" lies where the turds are fewest, anywhere in the world that
might be.
bh2 , 8 hours ago
The threat to US interests is not in the ME (apart from Israel). It's in the Pacific.
NATO was never intended to be a defense arrangement perpetually funded by the US. Once
stood up and post-war economies in Europe were restored, it was supposed to be a European
defense shield with the US as ultimate backup. Not as a sugar-daddy for wealthy nations. Now
that Russia is no longer situated to attack through the Fulda Gap, NATO is a grotesque
expression of Parkinson's Law writ large.
China is a real threat to US interests. That's obvious simply by consulting a map.
Military assets committed to engagement in theaters that no longer seriously matter is
feckless and spendthrift. Particularly when Americans are put in harm's way with no prospect
of either winning or leaving.
Worse yet is the accelerating prospect of being drawn into conflict in the South China Sea
because fewer than decisive US and allied assets are deployed there.
While nations are now responding to that threat (including Japan, who are re-arming),
China must realize a successful Taiwan invasion faces steadily diminishing prospects. They
must act soon or give up the opportunity. Moreover, the CCP are loosing face with their own
people because of multiple calamities wreaking havoc. The danger of a desperate CCP turning
to a hot war to save face is an ever-rising threat. (If Three Gorges Dam fails, that could be
the final straw.)
FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor). It appears modern neo warmongers of all stripes would be delighted
if China were tempted into yet another senseless war in the Pacific. And more lives lost on
all sides.
While the size of US military and (ineptly named) "intelligence" budgets are vastly out of
scale, the short-term cost in money is secondary to risk of long-term cost in blood. Surging
the budget may make good sense when guns are all pointing in the wrong direction and
political donors don't care as long as it pays well.
Defeating that outrageously wasteful spending is the first battle to be won. Disengaging
from stupid, distracting, unwinnable conflicts is an imperative to achieve that goal.
The Judge , 8 hours ago
US. is the real threat to US interests.
DeptOfPsyOps-14527776 , 8 hours ago
An important part of this statue quo is propaganda and in particular neo-con
propaganda.
Once it was clear that agitating against the Russian federation had failed, they started
agitating against the PRC.
FDR administration wasn't that clever, they just had (((support))). They wanted Imperial
Japan unable to strengthen itself against the United Kingdom as it was waging a war against
the European Axis, did not realize that the Japanese fleet could reach as far as Hawaii and
after Pearl Harbor, believed the West Coast could have been attacked as well.
Hovewer, they likely expected the Japanese to intercept their fleet on the way to the
Phillipines after a war between Imperial Japan and the Commonwealth had started.
Salzburg1756 , 8 hours ago
"FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor)." No, we knew the japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor. We had
broken their code. That's why we sent our best battle ships away from Hawaii just before the
attack. Most of the ships they sank were old and worthless; our good ships were out at
sea.
TheLastMan , 4 hours ago
What constitutes "America's interests"?
the us military is the world community welcome wagon for global multi national Corp
chamber of commerce
Do us citizens serve corporations or do corporations serve us citizens?
next ?, who owns / controls corporations?
Alice-the-dog , 8 hours ago
There is a reason why suicide is the leading cause of death among active duty military.
They come to realize that what they are doing is perfect male bovine fecal matter. That they
are guilty of participating in completely unwarranted death and destruction.
847328_3527 , 9 hours ago
Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of
Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War
Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.
CAIRO (AP) -- Egypt's parliament on Monday authorized the deployment of troops outside the
country, a move that could escalate the spiraling war in Libya after the president threatened
military action against Turkish-backed forces in the oil-rich country.
A troop deployment in Libya could bring Egypt and Turkey, close U.S. allies that support
rival sides in the conflict, into direct confrontation.
"... I seem to recall William "Bill" Browder, AKA "Putin's Number-One Enemy" was briefly detained in Spain on an Interpol warrant or something. ..."
"... And courtesy of today's Independent, the words of that most noble and trustworthy lying cnut Browder as regards "Russian Meddling" in the affairs of my pathetic Motherland: ..."
"... Spoken by a person who changed his citizenship so as to dodge paying tax. What a slimy toad Browder is! ..."
"... Of course, though, Browder is not an oligarch himself. He's an 'investment firm boss'. And naturally he does not himself engage 'basically in intelligence and influence work'. He only single-handedly managed to get the Magnitsky Act on the books, where it will stay forever although the German press is belatedly owning up that Magnitsky was not the pink-faced legal cherub Browder portrayed. If that's not influence, I don't know what is. ..."
"... The west is so fixed on 'getting' Russia that it must simply make things up when it cannot find real reasons for its hatred. You could say that the USA with its marble-this-and-that secret algorithms is making up online traffic and attributing it to Russia, but I'm pretty sure other western countries are not complete oafs themselves in the computer world, and if you know what you're looking for I'm sure that their analysts can separate fantasy-land gifts like 'Kremlin Assassination Plan for American Soldiers' from actual Russian plans. ..."
I think the only Spanish connection it is a convenient location for whatever they were
up to off-shore. We are expected to trust the intelligence services word that
Litvinenko/Skripal/whomever were investigating the 'Russian Mafia' in Spain, so in reality it
could be anything.
What we do know is that Spain signed an updated SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) with the
United States in 2012 (Second Amendment) and 2015 (Third Amendment). Why should this be
linked to UK Russian assets like Litvinenko & Skripal? Because we know that when the
United States wants to do something off the books , i.e. that is techincally illegal
for their citizens to do on their soil, the UK more than happy to oblige (sic. the choice of
Steele's Orbis company in the UK to peddle lies for the Democrats to say that they only lost
the US election because of someone else. Everybody else's fault but not theirs.
And courtesy of today's Independent, the words of that most noble and trustworthy lying
cnut Browder as regards "Russian Meddling" in the affairs of my pathetic Motherland:
Will the Russia report 'follow the money'?
Russia is operating in the UK through "oligarchs" who "spend their money on highly
placed people", according to British investment firm boss Bill Browder.
Browder, the CEO of Hermitage Capital, who gave evidence for the report, told the BBC
said these figures "would basically do intelligence and influence work".
How far will the report delve into the influence of Russian money in British politics?
Although this morning's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) 50-page document is
expected to cover political donations from wealthy Russians, reports suggest it won't
actually name any names.
Spoken by a person who changed his citizenship so as to dodge paying tax. What a slimy toad Browder is!
I shouldn't have said that: toads are very useful creatures.
See -- or better: do not, see unless you have a vomit bag near at hand:
UK politics news live: Latest updates as long-awaited Russia report to be released
today | The Independent
Of course, though, Browder is not an oligarch himself. He's an 'investment firm boss'. And
naturally he does not himself engage 'basically in intelligence and influence work'. He only
single-handedly managed to get the Magnitsky Act on the books, where it will stay forever
although the German press is belatedly owning up that Magnitsky was not the pink-faced legal
cherub Browder portrayed. If that's not influence, I don't know what is.
The west is so fixed on 'getting' Russia that it must simply make things up when it cannot
find real reasons for its hatred. You could say that the USA with its marble-this-and-that
secret algorithms is making up online traffic and attributing it to Russia, but I'm pretty
sure other western countries are not complete oafs themselves in the computer world, and if
you know what you're looking for I'm sure that their analysts can separate fantasy-land gifts
like 'Kremlin Assassination Plan for American Soldiers' from actual Russian plans.
But they
pretend to be fooled. And the best they can come up with is that Russia is behind upsets like
the Black Lives Matter movement which are tearing the USA apart. If Russia always had such a
mysterious weapon, why did it wait so long to use it when the USA and UK spit in its face
every day?
John, what say you about US/global military spending, which if cut and reallocated in the
low double digits could transform society? Do you think it's just politically untouchable? If
the US cut its military budget by say 25% it would still be formidable, especially given its
nuclear deterrent. For the life of me I can never understand why military budgets are
sacrosanct. Is it just WW2 and Cold War hangover? Couldn't the obvious effects of climate
change and the fragility of the economy subject to natural threats like the pandemic change
attitudes about overfunding the military (like the debacle of the F-35 program)?
Alan White @13 Military spending is about 3.4 per cent of US GDP, compared to 2 per cent
or less most places. So that's a significant and unproductive use of resources that could be
redirected to better effect. But the income of the top 1 per cent is around 20 per cent of
total income. If that was cut in half, there would be little or no reduction in the
productive services supplied by this group. If you want big change, that's where you need to
look.
I think some of the reluctance to cut military spending in the US is the extent to which
it acts as a politically unassailable source of fiscal stimulus and "welfare" in a country
where such things are otherwise anathema. Well, that and all of the grift it represents for
the donor class.
Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in
this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond
what Crooke provides.
As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing
of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say
much the same.
What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from
his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies.
And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue
to lie and commit massive fraud.
The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account
of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason,
morality and credibility .
Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's
institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.
The UK will later impose sanctions independently for the first time on dozens of
individuals accused of human rights abuses around the world.
Dominic Raab will name the first violators to have their assets frozen as part of a new
post-Brexit regime.
These are expected to include Russian officials thought to be implicated in the death
of Sergei Magnitsky in 2009.
The whistleblower's maltreatment while in custody has been condemned by the European
Court of Human Rights.
In the past, the UK has almost always imposed sanctions collectively as a member of the
United Nations or European Union but, after its departure from the EU in January, a new
framework is being put in place in UK law .
####
The UK is sanctimonious to a fault. The UK says Magnitsky was a crackerjack tax lawyer and
whistleblower who exposed a gigantic tax fraud by the Russian government. The Russian
government says Magnitsky was a crooked accountant who masterminded a tax-cheat scheme to
help a western crook set up tax shelters and buy Gazprom stock at the price accorded to
nationals only. The UK has been caught in lie after lie after lie, and the scenarios it has
constructed for wrongdoing by Russia on its own soil will barely withstand critical thinking
by alcoholics and farmyard animals. Who's got form here?
By John Ryan, Ph.D . – Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg, Canada
If anyone has proven the adage that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on it shoes,"
it's Bill Browder. The mega-rich vulture capitalist has been spinning a yarn for years.
Intriguingly, after Germany's leading news magazine kiboshed his fake narrative, Anglo-American media ignored the revelations.
Browder's narrative suits the US/UK establishment as it provides a convenient excuse to sanction Russia, but the story has more
holes than Swiss cheese.
The billionaire vulture capitalist has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past decade. A few months back,
Der Spiegel
published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky, but the US/UK mainstream media failed to follow it up and so,
aside from Germany, few people are aware of Browder's background.
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies by then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For
a time, it was the largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management
was rated as extremely successful after
earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December 2007.
During the corrupt Boris Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US$25 million, Browder
amassed a
fortune. Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to 2006, his Hermitage firm eventually
grew to $4.5 billion.
When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities, he portrayed himself as an anti-corruption activist
and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However,
an examination of Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveal contradictions with his statements to the public
and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking corruption in Russia.
Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian companies to adopt Western-style governance,
it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized companies he was targeting for takeover. Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has
revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in a company, he would resort to lawsuits against this company through
shell companies he controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To prevent its collapse,
the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it, causing its stock to rise -- with the result that Browder's
profits would rise exponentially.
Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant Magnitsky
acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's
companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5 percent instead of the 35 percent that foreigners would have to pay.
However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign companies and citizens from purchasing equities
in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in
2008. Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and charged by Russian prosecutors with
two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's
shell companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009, Magnitsky died in pre-trial detention because of a
failure by
prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.
Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest and death were a targeted act of revenge
by Russian authorities against a heroic anti-corruption activist.
It's only recently that Browder's position was challenged by the European Court of Human Rights, which in its ruling on August
27, 2019 concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable suspicion of his having committed
a criminal offence." And as such, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."
"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy,
started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."
Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable activities, Browder had been refused entry to
Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly
expressed
by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:
[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities, accusing them of corruption and violation
of human rights. The death of his accountant and auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch
an international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky
is anything but.
Despite Browder's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic documents and testimonies show that
Magnitsky died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a gallstone condition. It was negligence typical
at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high-level functionaries
in the prison system were fired or demoted.
For the past 10 years, Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by prison guards. Without any verifiable
evidence he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18 minutes. This was never corroborated
by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.
Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to discredit and vilify Russia and its government
and leaders.
In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying beliefs and assumptions are being
seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with
the heading
Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :
On Fault Lines today I revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei Magnitsky, William
Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died
at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos were taken the next day.
I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen U.S. media – both allegedly progressive
and mainstream -- have refused to publish this information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant
fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.
Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was beaten to death with rubber batons. It's
this narrative that has attracted the attention of the US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists.
To further refute his account, a 2011
analysis by the Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder found no evidence
he was beaten to death.
In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian documents. They were compiled immediately
after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009. Recent investigative research has
revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The first document, D309, states that shortly before Magnitsky's death:
"Handcuffs were used in connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the handcuffs
were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a forensic review states that while in the prison hospital, "Magnitsky
exhibited behavior diagnosed as 'acute psychosis' by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr. Magnitsky to be restrained
with handcuffs."
The second document, D310, is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the preceding sentence. The sentence in
D309 has the phrase "special means were" is changed in D310 to "a rubber baton was."
As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no sense whatsoever, given the title
and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistencies, including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310
was copied from D309 and that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical reports to have
been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document
forms a major basis for Browder's claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.
The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a baton attack, combined with forensic
photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's decade-long
assertions that Magnitsky was viciously murdered while in jail.
With evidence such as this, it repeatedly becomes clear that Browder's narrative contains mistakes and inconsistencies that distort
the overall view of the events leading to Magnitsky's death.
Despite Magnitsky's death, the case against him continued in Russia and he was found guilty of corruption in a posthumous trial.
Actually, the trial's main purpose was to investigate alleged fraud by Bill Browder, but to proceed with this they had to include
the accountant Magnitsky as well. The Russian court found both of them guilty of fraud. Afterwards, the case against Magnitsky was
closed because of his death.
After Browder was refused entry to Russia in November of 2005, he launched a campaign insisting that his departure from Russia
resulted from his anti-corruption activities. However, the real reason for the cancellation of his visa that he never mentions is
that in 2003, a Russian provincial court had convicted Browder of evading $40 million in taxes. In addition, his illegal
purchases of shares in Gazprom through the use of offshore shell companies
were reportedly valued at another $30 million, bringing the total figure of tax evasion to $70 million.
It's after this that the Russian federal government next took up the case and initially went after Magnitsky, the accountant who
carried out Browder's schemes.
But back in the US, Browder portrayed himself as the ultimate truth-teller, and embellished his tale by asserting that Sergei
Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in tax fraud. As his case
got more involved, he presented a convoluted explanation that he was not responsible for bogus claims made by his companies. This
is indeed an extremely complicated matter and as such only a summary of some of this will be presented.
The essence of the case is that in 2007, three shell companies that had once been owned by Browder were used to claim a $232 million
tax refund based on trumped-up financial loses. Browder has stated that the companies were stolen from him, and that in a murky operation
organized by a convicted fraudster, they were re-registered in the names of others. There is evidence, however, that Magnitsky and
Browder may have been part of this convoluted scheme.
Browder's main company in Russia was Hermitage Capital Management, and associated with this firm were a large number of shell
companies, some in the Russian republic of Kalmykia and some in the British Virgin Islands. A law firm in Moscow, Firestone Duncan,
owned by Americans, did the legal work for Browder's Hermitage. Sergei Magnitsky was one of the accountants for Firestone Duncan
and was assigned to work for Hermitage.
An accountant colleague of Magnitsky's at Firestone Duncan, Konstantin Ponomarev, was interviewed in 2017 by Komisar, who said:
According to Ponomarev, the firm – and Magnitsky -- set up an offshore structure that Russian investigators would later
say was used for tax evasion and illegal share purchases by Hermitage the structure helped Browder execute tax-evasion and illegal
share purchase schemes.
He said the holdings were layered to conceal ownership: The companies were 'owned' by Cyprus shells Glendora and Kone, which,
in turn, were 'owned' by an HSBC Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. Ponomarev said the real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund.
He said the structure allowed money to move through Cyprus to Guernsey with little or no taxes paid along the way. Profits could
get cashed out in Guernsey by investors of the Hermitage Fund and HSBC.
Ponomarev said that in 1996, the firm developed for Browder 'a strategy of how to buy Gazprom shares in the local market,
which was restricted for foreign investors.'
In the course of their investigation, on June 2, 2007, Russian tax investigators raided the offices of Hermitage and Firestone
Duncan. They seized Hermitage company documents, computers and corporate stamps and seals. They were looking for evidence to support
Russian charges of tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares of Gazprom.
In a statement to US senators on July 27, 2017, Browder
stated that Russian Interior Ministry officials "seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies
of the funds that I advised. I didn't know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old
named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials
had."
Contrary to what Browder claims, Magnitsky had been his accountant for a decade. He had never acted as a lawyer, nor did he have
the qualifications to do so. In fact, in 2006, when questioned by Russian investigators, Magnitsky
said he was an
auditor on contract with Firestone Duncan. In Browder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017, he claimed Magnitsky
was his lawyer, but in 2015, in his testimony under oath in the US government's Prevezon case, Browder told a different story, as
will now be related.
On Browder's initiative, in December 2012, he presented documents to the New York District Attorney alleging that a Russian company,
Prevezon, had "benefitted from part of the $230 million dollar theft uncovered by Magnitsky and used those funds to buy a number
of luxury apartments in Manhattan." In September 2013, the New York District Attorney's office filed money-laundering charges
against Prevezon. The company hired high-profile New York-based lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.
As reported by Der Spiegel, Browder would not voluntarily agree to testify in court, so Prevezon's lawyers sent process servers
to present him with a subpoena, which he refused to accept and was caught on video literally running away. In March 2015, the judge
in the Prevezon case ruled that Browder would have to give testimony as part of pre-trial discovery. Later, while in court and under
oath and confronted with numerous documents, Browder was totally evasive. Lawyer Mark Cymrot spent six hours examining him, beginning
with the following exchange:
Cymrot asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?
He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.
And he had a law degree in Russia?
"I'm not aware he did."
Did he go to law school?
"No."
How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?
"I don't know."
Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
"No."
Critically important, during the court case, the responsible US investigator admitted during questioning that his findings were
based exclusively on statements and documents from Browder and his team. Under oath, Browder was unable to explain how he and his
people managed to track the flow of money and make the accusation against Prevezon. In his 2012 letter that launched the court case,
Browder referred to "corrupt schemes" used by Prevezon, but when questioned under oath, he admitted he didn't know of any. In fact,
to almost every question put forth by Mark Cymrot, Browder replied that he didn't know or didn't remember.
(Read the next part of The Real Bill Browder story on Thursday, here on RT)
20 Saudi nationals involved in the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi;
25 Russian nationals involved in the mistreatment and death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky,
who uncovered widespread corruption;
two high-ranking Myanmar generals involved in violence against Rohingya people and
other ethnic minorities
Two organisations involved in forced labour, torture and murder in North Korea's gulags
have also been listed
The new autonomous regime will allow the UK to work independently with allies such as
the US, Canada, Australia and the EU
####
But not Mohammed Bin Salman, obvs. Those weapons aren't going to sell themselves!
Can the UK government put itself on the list for arbitary detention and expulsion of Brits
born in Jamaica but resident in the UK for decades and asked to come to the UK due to
the shortage of national labor, aka the Windrush scandal? The latest news on that is there is
no automatic redress for those screwed over by Theresa May+. They have to prove they that
they had been unfairly targeted!
'Suspected' killers. That's good enough for sanctions these days. Hopefully the rest of
the EU will take Brexit as an opportunity to break with the Russophobic policies of the loony
UK and its crackpot big brother, and re-orient its economy on a separate trajectory from
theirs. We're already going to end up with two distinct trading blocs who operate largely
outside one another, to the detriment of both but much more so to the United States. We don't
need three. I'm watching in appalled fascination to see what happens to the American airliner
market when it doesn't get any more Chinese orders. Once I would have said it was impossible
that Boeing would go under, but now I'm not so sure.
Speaking of Boeing, no more 747's will be built after the current order backlog is
completed, about 13 more planes. That'll be it for four-engine airliners – too
expensive to run. Twin-engine planes can achieve almost the same range for less outlay. And
economy is going to have to be the watchword of the aviation industry for awhile if it is to
survive: air travel in the USA is down about 80% in the past week. Of course Boeing stock
rose, though, because the investor class lives in a different reality.
I can't help noting that this will mean Boeing will rely even more heavily on the 737.
Danny Sjursen goes undercover in Trumplandia and comes back with this reflection on the U.S.
president's loss of loyalty among soldiers and veterans.
...As both the Covid-19 crisis and the
militarization of the police in the streets of American cities have made clear, the
imperial power that we veterans fought for abroad is the same one some of us are now struggling
against at home and the two couldn't be more intimately linked. Our struggle is, at least in
part, over who gets to define patriotism.
Should the sudden wave of military and veteran dissent keep rising, it will invariably crash
against the pageantry patriots of
Chickenhawk America who attended that Tulsa rally and we'll all face a new and critical
theater in this nation's culture wars. I don't pretend to know whether such protests will last
or military dissent will augur real change of any sort. What I do know is what my favorite rock
star, Bruce Springsteen, used to repeat before
live renditions of his song "Born to Run":
William H Warrick MD , July 10, 2020 at 13:21
oBOMBa destroyed the Anti-War Movement. When he got in the White House all of them began
going to Brunch instead of Peace/Anti-War marches.
"... Browder testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee ..."
"... claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards ..."
"... Browder's Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it. ..."
"... She says there has been a violation of Article 165 of the criminal code. ..."
"... Browder translates that into Starova accusing his companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his testimony , Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky. ..."
"... Magnitsky's body on a cot in the hospital ward. ..."
"... Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Script: The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door. ..."
"... Magnitsky face shoulders on hospital-bed ..."
"... Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Browder doctored report claims a section illegible, third line. ..."
"... Russian document shows nothing is illegible. ..."
"... Dr. Robert Bux ..."
"... They do exist, but Browder did not give them to PHR. ..."
"... Forensic photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee ..."
"... Forensic schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries. ..."
"... closed craniocerebral injury ..."
"... No signs of a violent death detected." ..."
"... Magnitsky death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected ..."
Browder
testimony
to
Senate Judiciary Committee
claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards
.
The U.S. and UK are intensifying their collaborative Cold War against Russia. In Washington, calls for sanctions are based on
the fake "bountygate," and the UK has sanctioned selected Russians based on William Browder's Magnitsky hoax.
The "bountygate" charge that Russia paid militants to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan is unproved by U.S. intelligence
agencies and even discounted by the international wire-tapping National Security Agency (NSA). The UK
sanctions
against
25 Russians, judges and court officials, tax investigators, and prison doctors, are based on disproved claims by billionaire
investor William Browder that they were responsible for the death of his accountant Sergei Magnitsky.
Browder's Magnitsky story is a pillar of America's Russiagate, which has five. Before bountygate, there was the 2019 Mueller
Report which found no evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians, the Jan 2017 intelligence agencies'
charge
of
Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election which concludes with the admission that they had no proof; and the 2016
accusation that Russians had stolen Democratic National Committee emails, made by the private security group CrowdStrike,
later walked back by CrowdStrike's president
Shawn
Henry
at a secret House hearing in Dec 2017, but not revealed till this May.
With the UK, we return to the first pillar of the U.S. Russiagate story, the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which targeted many on the
U.S. list. The Magnitsky Act is recognized as the beginning of the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations. It is based on a
hoax invented by Browder and easily disproved by documentary evidence, if governments cared about that.
The European Court of Human Rights on Magnitsky's arrest
First, a few of the obvious fake charges. Three judges are accused of detaining Magnitsky, which the UK says "facilitated" his
mistreatment and denial of medical care. However, the European Court of Human Rights
ruled
in
August 2019, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion." The Court said: "The
accusations were based on documentary evidence relating to the payment of taxes by those companies and statements by several
disabled persons who had confessed to sham work for the two companies."
The decision to arrest him was made after "investigating authorities noted that during a tax inquiry which had preceded the
criminal investigation, Mr Magnitskiy had influenced witnesses, and that he had been preparing to flee abroad. In particular,
he had applied for an entry visa to the United Kingdom and had booked a flight to Kyiv." He was a flight risk.
Several of the UK targets were said to have "facilitated" mistreatment of Magnitsky because they had been involved in a fraud
he exposed. The reference is to a $230-million tax refund scam against the Russian Treasury.
Back to the ECHR: "The Court observe[d] that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings
against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent
acts." The taxes were the real story; the fraud narrative was a cover-up.
The fake fraud story
Magnitsky did not uncover a massive fraud. That was the tax refund fraud in which companies engaged in collusive lawsuits,
"lost" the suits, and "agreed" to pay damages equal to their entire year's profits. They then requested a full refund of taxes
paid on the now zero gains. The fake lawsuits and payouts were first revealed to police by Russian shell company director
Rimma Starova
April
9
and
July
10,
2008. (Russian originals
April
and
July
.)
With investigators on the trail, Browder's Hermitage Fund director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the fraud, and Browder
gave the story to The
NYTimes
and
the Russian paper
Vedomosti
,
which published it July 24, 2008, long before Magnitsky mentioned it in October 2008. His
testimony
did
not accuse any officials.
Browder's
Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his
narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it.
She says there has been a
violation of
Article
165
of the criminal code.
Browder translates that into Starova accusing his
companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his
testimony
,
Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky.
The main story at the center of the Magnitsky Acts in the U.S. and UK are not that he was mistreated or failed to get good
medical care, which is what is mostly alleged here. That would put dozens of U.S. prison officials in the crosshairs,
including recently those running state prison systems in
Alabama
and
Mississippi
.
It is that he was murdered. In the only reference to beating, the head of the Matrosskaya detention center is accused of
"ordering the handcuffing and beating" of Magnitsky before he died.
The U.S. Act, on which the British version is modeled, says that in detention Magnitsky "was beaten by 8 guards with rubber
batons on the last day of his life." But the alleged assailants' names are not on the list. A key argument made by sponsors
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md) and Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass) was that the people targeted – tax investigators, court officials,
hospital workers -- played a role in this claimed murder of Magnitsky. (Cardin and McGovern haven't responded to my requests
to comment on contradictory evidence.)
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab takes the same line, declaring, "You cannot set foot in this country, and we will seize your
blood-drenched ill-gotten gains if you try," as he announced the new sanctions. Blood-drenched? No evidence supplied for the
sanctioned Russians.
For Browder, the purpose of the Magnitsky Acts he promotes in the West is as a political tool to build a wall against Russia's
attempt to have him answer for documented financial frauds totaling at least $100 million, and with new evidence as much as
$400 million.
The death hoax: Forensic photos tell the truth
Here is the story of Magnitsky death hoax, with links to evidence, including how Browder forged and falsified documents.
Browder had the Russian forensic reports and photos that were made after Magnitsky's death but suppressed what did not support
his arguments. The photos in this forensic
report
show
that Magnitsky, allegedly beaten to death, didn't have a life-threatening mark on his body.
Magnitsky's
body on a cot in the hospital ward.
Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L.
Magnitsky.
Script:
The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door.
Magnitsky
face shoulders on hospital-bed
.
Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky.
Browder doctored part of another forensic
report
provided
in translation to the Physicians for Human Rights, Cambridge, Mass., for its
analysis
of
Magnitsky's death. It notes as "illegible" words that show there were no beating marks on Magnitsky's body and that there was
no scalp damage. The deleted parts of the true translation are underlined.
"The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck, trunk, upper and lower
extremities,
with pressure on them
with a finger disappear and restore their original color after 8 minutes. Damage
not found on the scalp."
The doctored line reads, "The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck,
trunk, upper and lower extremities, (illegible) not found on the scalp."
Here in the report that Browder gave PHR:
Browder
doctored report claims a section illegible, third line.
The paragraph in the Russian
document
shows
nothing is illegible.
Russian
document shows nothing is illegible.
The Russian words omitted in the doctored English document are "при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают
свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено."
The full Russian text can be translated online: Трупные пятна обильные, синюшно-фиолетовые, разлитые, располагающиеся на
задней поверхности шеи, туловища, верхних и нижних конечностей, при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают
свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено. Кости лицевого скелета, хрящи
носа на ощупь целы. Глаза закрыты.
What the American pathologist who analyzed Browder's documents said
Dr.
Robert Bux
Dr. Robert C. Bux, then coroner/chief medical examiner for the El Paso County Coroner's Office in Colorado Springs, was the
forensic expert on the team that wrote the PHR
report
.
Bux told me, "I do not think that these spots are contusions. Contusions will not go away and can be demonstrated by incising
or cutting into the tissues under the skin. These are reportedly all on the posterior aspect of the neck, body and limbs and
may represent postmortem
lividity
when
the body was viewed by the prosecutor of the autopsy."
Dr. Bux said, "If this is lividity (red purple coloration of the skin) it is not yet fixed and will blanch to a pale skin
color and red purple coloration will disappear. If the body is then placed face up i.e. supine then after a few minutes then
it will appear again. This is simply due to blood settling in the small blood vessels and a function of gravity."
It's not what a layman reading Browder's forged "illegible" might think.
Dr. Bux added, "Having said all of this, I have never seen any
autopsy photographs demonstrating this, and while photographs should have been taken to document all skin abnormalities as
well as all surfaces of the body to document the presence or absence of trauma, I do not know if photographs were taken and
withheld or never taken
."
PHR said, "A full and independent review of the cause of death of S.L. Magnitsky is not possible given the documentation
presented and available to PHR." The document list is at its report pages
2-3
.
The PHR autopsy protocol claims that there are "photo tables on 2 sheets" and "schematic representation of injuries on 1
sheet. However, if they exist, they were not available for the present review."
They do exist, but Browder did not
give them to PHR.
Browder posted and widely distributed this composite of
photos
of
bruises on Magnitsky's hand and knee taken November 17
th
,
2009, the day after the accountant's death.
Forensic
photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee
He got them from Russian forensic
Report
2052.
Katie
Fisher
,
doing public relations for Hermitage,
posted
them,
but not the text, to Google Cloud.
The report cited "circular abrasions in the wrist area," a "bluish-violet bruise" and "multiple strip-like horizontally
located abrasions."
It said, "A bruise located on the inner surface of the right lower limb in the projection of the ankle joint appeared 3-6 days
before the time death."
It concluded, "[T]hese injuries in living persons do not entail a temporary disability or a significant permanent loss of
general disability and are not regarded as harm to health, they are not in a cause and effect relationship with death."
The forensic reports attribute bruises to Magnitsky wearing handcuffs and kicking and hitting against cell doors. Magnitsky's
lawyer Dmitri Kharitonov
told
filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov, "I think he was simply banging on the door with all his force trying to make them let him out and none paid
attention."
No other injuries found
The same
report
includes
schematic drawings of Magnitsky's body on which to note other relevant marks or injuries.
The report said,
"There were no marks or injuries noted on his head
or torso No other injuries were found on the corpse
" Browder didn't send PHR these drawings or make them public.
Forensic
schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries.
Asked if there was evidence that Magnitsky was "beaten to death by
riot guards," Dr. Bux told me, "I have no evidence to suggest that this occurred."
For the record,
PHR
said
Magnitsky's
death was from untreated serious illness. Even without the body photos, its experts didn't claim a beating. Forensic analysts
never have.
Manipulating the death certificate
To promote his fabrication, Browder posted a deceptive PowerPoint of the death certificate that indicated a
"
closed
craniocerebral injury
?"
circled in red, with the other text too small to
read.
Magnitsky
death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected
"Closed" meant "past." Several forensic documents include an interview with Magnitsky's mother Natalya Magnitskaya. She
told
investigators,
"In 1993 – I can't say a more accurate date, S.L Magnitsky had a craniocerebral injury. He slipped on the street and as a
result hit his head, after which he had headaches for some time."
Investigators obtained full medical records including this on page 29 of
Report
555-10
in English, which Browder gave PHR: "
On February 4, 1993, at about
08:40 a.m.., in his house entrance he slipped and fell down hitting his head, lost consciousness for a short time, vomited,
attended for emergency help by an ambulance which took him to the City Clinic Hospital (GKB).
Was examined by the
neurosurgeon in the reception ward, craniogram without pathema. Diagnosis: brain concussion, recommended treatment to be taken
on an out-patient clinic basis."
Browder's assertion that the "closed craniocerebral injury" came from a beating was a lie.
Browder's changing stories on the death of Magnitsky
Browder did not initially claim Magnitsky had been murdered. He said Magnitsky, left alone uncared for in a room, had simply
died. After a few years, pushing the Magnitsky Act, he declared Magnitsky had been tied up and beaten by rubber baton-wielding
thugs until dead.
Graphic by Michael Thau.
Browder December 2009 tells
Chatham
House
, London, "I don't know what they were thinking. I don't know whether they killed him deliberately on the night of
the 16th, or if he died of neglect."
"They put him in a straight-jacket, put him in an isolation room and waited 1 hour and 18 minutes until he died." December
2010,
San
Diego Law School
.
Then, promoting the Magnitsky Act, "They put him in an isolation cell, tied him to a bed, then allowed eight guards guards
beat him with rubber batons for 118 min until he was dead." December 2011,
University
of Cambridge
Judge Business School.
" .they put him in an isolation cell, chained him to a bed, and eight riot guards came in and beat him with rubber batons.
That night he was found dead on the cell floor." July 2017, U.S.
Senate
Judiciary Committee
.
What the Moscow Public Oversight Commission says really happened
The
Public
Oversight Commission
, an independent Russian NGO, reports Magnitsky's final day differently. November 16, 2009:
7:00pm. The patient behaves inadequately. Talks to a "voice," looks disorientated, and shouts that someone wants to kill him.
His condition is diagnosed as psychosis. The emergency doctor was called. There are no body damages apart from traces of
handcuffs on the wrists.
7:30pm. He was left unattended without medical support.
8:48pm. Emergency team arrived. When emergency doctors entered the special cell, Sergei was sitting on the cot, with his eyes
unfocused.
9:15pm. The patient was surveyed again as his condition deteriorated. He lost consciousness. The reanimation procedure was
started (indirect heart massage and ventilation of lungs using the Ambu pillow). The patient was transferred to the special
room where he received an artificial ventilation of lungs and a hormones injection.
9:50pm. The patient died."
The commission reported no evidence of beating. The Russian forensic and medical experts' conclusion was that Magnitsky had
heart disease (arteriosclerosis), diabetes, hepatitis, and pancreatitis, some illnesses predating arrest. They wrote detailed
criticism of the doctors' treatment, saying that it wasn't timely or adequate and that "the shortcomings in the provision of
the medical assistance to S.L. Magnitsky" caused his death.
But it's not the riot squad beating Browder, with no evidence, sold to the U.S. Congress, the State Department, the UK
Parliament, the Foreign Office and the media. Or that U.S. or UK authorities or media ever attempted to prove. Because like
the Tonkin Gulf "incident" and Iraq's WMD, the weaponized Russiagate stories have a foreign/military policy goal. Truth is
quite irrelevant.
Trump as wolf in sheep's clothing in his policy toward Russia. Any person who can appoint
Bolton as his national security advisor should be criminally prosecuted for criminal
incompetence. To say nothing about Pompeo, Haley and many others. Such a peacenik, my ***
The USA foreign policy is not controlled by the President. It is controlled by the "Deep state"
Notable quotes:
"... The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes. ..."
"... But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion. ..."
"... despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration. ..."
"... Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy. ..."
When it comes to Russia, the Trump administration just can't seem to make
up its mind.
For the past three years, the administration has careered between President Donald Trump's
attempts to curry favor and friendship with Vladimir Putin and longstanding deep-seated
concerns about Putin's intentions. As Trump has repeatedly and openly cozied up to Putin, his
administration has imposed harsh and meaningful sanctions and penalties on Russia.
The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish
but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in
Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy
and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes.
Even before Trump took office questions about Russia abounded. Now, nearing the end of his
first term with a difficult
reelection ahead , those questions have resurfaced with a vengeance. Intelligence
suggesting Russia
was encouraging attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan by putting bounties on
their heads has thrust the matter into the heart of the 2020 campaign.
The White House says the intelligence wasn't confirmed or brought to Trump's attention, but
his vast chorus of critics are skeptical and maintain the president should have been
aware.
The reports have alarmed even pro-Trump Republicans who see Russia as a hostile global foe
meddling with nefarious intent in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Ukraine and Georgia, a waning
former superpower trying to regain its Soviet-era influence by subverting democracy in Europe
and the United States with disinformation and election interference .
Trump's overtures to Putin have unsettled longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, including
Britain, France and Germany, which have expressed concern about the U.S. commitment to the NATO
alliance, which was forged to counter the Soviet threat, and robust democracy on the
continent.
But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential
friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may
share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion.
Within the Trump administration, the national security establishment appears torn between
pursuing an arguably tough approach to Russia and pleasing the president. Insiders who have
raised concern about Trump's approach to Russia -- including at least one of his national
security advisers, defense secretaries and secretaries of state, but especially lower-level
officials who spoke out during impeachment -- have nearly all been ousted from their
positions.
Suspicions about Trump and Russia go back to his 2016 campaign. His appeal to Moscow to dig up his
opponent's emails , his plaintive suggestions that Russia and the United States should be
friends and a series of contacts between his advisers and Russians raised questions of
impropriety that led to special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation . The investigation ultimately did not allege that anyone associated with the
campaign illegally conspired with Russia.
Mueller, along with the U.S. intelligence community, did find that Russia interfered with
the election, to sow chaos and also help Trump's campaign. But Trump has cast doubt on those
findings, most memorably in a 2018 appearance on stage with Putin in
Helsinki .
Yet despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most
significant actions against Russia by any recent administration.
Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control
treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine
despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to
prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties
believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy.
At the same time, Trump has compounded the uncertainty by calling for the withdrawal or
redeployment of U.S. troops from Germany, angrily deriding NATO allies for not meeting alliance
defense spending commitments, and now apparently ignoring dire intelligence warnings that
Russia was paying or wanted to pay elements of the Taliban to kill American forces in
Afghanistan.
On top of that, even after the intelligence reports on the Afghanistan bounties circulated,
he's expressed interest in inviting Putin back into the G-7 group of nations over the
objections of the other members.
White House officials and die-hard Trump supporters have shrugged off the obvious
inconsistencies, but they have been unable to staunch the swell of criticism and pointed
demands for explanations as Russia, which has vexed American leaders for decades, delights in
its ability to create chaos.
The organisers projected an image of the cover of the Russian Constitution against the
background of Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and the inscription "1993. It was yours " Then
there is an image of the Russian people and the message "2020. It will be ours!", followed by
a call to come to vote, was projected on the building of the US Embassy. The light projection
was organised by the art group "Re:Venge".
https://www.stalkerzone.org/the-russian-constitution-was-projected-onto-the-us-embassy-building-in-moscow/
Ha, I really like this one ! Would have loved to watch 'das dumme Gesicht' (something like
>>stupid face<< but stronger. like the Germans say) of the latest Trump's edition
of silly ambassadors, lol !!!
"... Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is 'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak. ..."
VK, re: Russia's grip on Europe is gradually tightening from the U.K.'s
INDEPENDENT
It's behind a paywall but I read just enough to be curious as to how someone could
possibly justify a clickbait title like that.
I suspect that the rest of the article is just
going to recap Russia's alleged sins in order to fan hatred but how can someone objectively
say that Russia is tightening its grip on Europe?
FUCKUS banned Russia from the Olympics on a bogus state sponsored steroid scam, no
reinstatement on horizon.
FUCKUS kicked Russia out of the now G7 and imposed a trade embargo that destroyed a large
commercial relationship w/Germany.
What is the 'overwhelming' evidence that the Russians poisoned the Skripal's, Novichok can be
made by just about anyone.
Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia
has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is
'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak.
It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in
American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds
of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of
embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory
refuses to die.
Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece.
Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page ,
George Papadopoulos ,
Michael Flynn ,
Paul Manafort ,
Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee
transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic
computers, including the
DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it
is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was
without basis .
It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail,
sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by
Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary
source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor."
Though the FBI was
aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless
used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen
flat on its face. The "
troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet
Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent
of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's
ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published
after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover,
has dropped its charges
against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's
special counsel probe.
Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the
foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled.
The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of
mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.
It Didn't Start With
Trump
The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to
hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the
United States has
exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in
the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color
Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border,
despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand "
one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.
Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United
States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and
communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another
Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover,
Washington has pursued one disastrous
diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another
round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking
point. That, however, has changed.
The Crisis They Needed
The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed "
the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the
fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars"
in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the
usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers,
journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire.
Something had to be done.
In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks
published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her
campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak
became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with
Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a
Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.
By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians
rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which
was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11
attacks , tantamount to
Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938
Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon
issued a
pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking
story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or
rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.
The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American
democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with
the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of
them playing both
roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports,
clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were
blown up .
A
large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that
Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power.
For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate
progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating
space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "
Stress Fractures
Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First"
and slammed NATO as "
obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of
the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.
Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to
join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the
measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir
Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against
Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly
unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto
would bring, even from his own party.
Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with
NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the
establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a
few months later, the administration would put out its National
Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from
counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.
On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing
course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the
Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a
pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.
Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration
helped to install
-- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
In an irony noticed by
few , some of the arms went to
open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National
Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some
of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to
out-and-out white supremacists.
Ukraine's
bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country
has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took
office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a
favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of
election-meddling.
Weaponizing Ukraine
The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval
Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution
as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia,
casting it in the role of an aggressive ,
expansionist power.
Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to
sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with
Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators --
including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security
forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.
Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama
administration poured millions of
dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding
activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed
color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while
positioning the most
U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.
The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass
region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted
their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror"
that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow,
Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly
predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.
In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a
more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The
annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming
that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment
western polling firms have since
corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually
triggering a raft of sanctions from the
U.S. and the EU (and more
recently, from
Trump himself ).
The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution
-- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored
the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression"
in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler,
driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016
election.
Succumbing to Hysteria
While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of
his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse
course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's
previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed
as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture
toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.
Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press
conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA
Director John Brennan declared it an
act of treason , while CNN gravely
contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball
-- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel
probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further
emboldening the claims of conspiracy.
Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to
do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the
most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of
opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with
Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.
Sanctions!
After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar
to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the
Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.
In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed
on Moscow in a highly
elaborate storyline that ultimately fell
apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western
governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled
60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in
response to the election-meddling allegations.
Though Trump had called to lift rather
than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press
coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits
of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.
Goodbye INF, RIP
OST
By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with
Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties
and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles
-- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.
At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national
security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence
to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control
pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had
violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether
it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms
and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.
After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned
munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the
treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise
missiles expressly banned under the INF.
Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower,
but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former
Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange
surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in
the post-Soviet world.
Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's
implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant
advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared
his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace
it.
Quid Pro Quo
With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion
coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's
enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between
Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.
During the call ,
Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate,
and to look into potential
corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an
active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.
Less than two months later, a " whistleblower
" -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent
concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his
complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face
meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a
major contender in the 2020 race.
The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a
whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe,
the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave
offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.
At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats
revived George W.
Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to
argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed
from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence
weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure
in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion
and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.
The End of New START?
The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing
the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in
the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on
the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset
clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.
With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic
throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign
trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation
skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.
The administration has
demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on
Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a
deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has
refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the
treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.
A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown
willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few
remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.
Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy
allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily
invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet,"
regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike
rhetoric.
Running for an Arms Race
As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is
also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has
fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it
off.
Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed
limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually
assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects,
including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in
2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which
also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .
Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President
Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year
nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration
has embraced the initiative with open arms, even
adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.
In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China
into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway.
After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning
out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class
of
low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the
threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also
mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved
the idea for now.
A Runaway Freight Train
As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have
become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger
hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the
relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with
Moscow.
The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from
hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press,
fueling a whole new round of election-meddling
allegations .
Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His
presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled
diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along
with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over
Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.
Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian
collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence
by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC
regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to
Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement
placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate
introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to
Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."
Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up
the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment
that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on
the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval
Office next.
Interesting history Browder has. I suspect he has a history with Putin before Putin became
President , but its hard to find anything on a connection. Anyways lots of interesting
connections, meaningful or not, I cant say.
[Hide MORE]
1985 - bugged version of PROMIS was sold for Soviet government use, with the media mogul
Robert Maxwell as a conduit.
1990 - just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Browder found himself on assignment in
Poland for Boston Consulting Group. The government had begun privatizing state-owned
companies and selling their shares at ridiculously low valuations.
1991 - Anatoly Sobchak, a former law professor of Putin's at Leningrad State, became mayor
of Leningrad.* Sobchak hired Vladimir Putin, whom he had known when Putin worked at Leningrad
State. Putin was still on active reserve with the KGB.
Putin's tenure in Sobchak's office was so rife with scandal that it led to a host of
investigations into illegal assignment of licenses and contracts . Putin was head of the
Committee for Foreign Liaison; collaborated with criminal gangs in regulating gambling; a
money-laundering operation by the St. Petersburg Real Estate Holding Company, where Kumarin
was involved and Putin served on the advisory board; Putin's role in providing a monopoly for
the Petersburg Fuel Company, then controlled by the Tambov criminal organization; and much,
much more -- virtually all of which was whitewashed. While he was in St. Petersburg in the
nineties, Putin signed many hundreds of contracts doling out funds to his cronies.
1991 - November 5, Robert Maxwell, allegedly drowned after falling off his yacht in the
Canary Islands near the northwest coast of Africa. Billions were missing from his pension
funds
Maxwell's investment bankers included Salomon Brothers. Eventually, the pension funds were
replenished with monies from investment banks Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs, as well as
the British government.
It was March 1991 when William Browder went to work for British billionaire Robert Maxwell
as his "investment manager". Just how deep into the investment decisions of Maxwell did
Browder participate as an investment manager?
1991 November 10, Maxwell's funeral took place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, the
resting place for the nation's most revered heroes. Prime Minister Shamir eulogized: "He has
done more Israel than can today be said."
1992 - Interestingly, after Maxwell died, Bill Browder went to work for the Salomon
Brothers in the middle of their own scandal. Browder was put in charge of the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers. He was given 25 million to invest and used
it by paying cash for vouchers in Russian companies the government had issued to citizens ,
and used them to buy shared at public auction. In a short period he turned that into 125
million
The scandal at Salomon Brothers was the manipulation of the US Treasury auctions back
then.After that scandal where the government was threatening to shut down Salomon Brothers
who was the biggest bond dealer in the USA for manipulating markets, all of a sudden, people
from Goldman Sachs started taking posts in government.
1996-Browder left Salomon Brothers and with Edmond Safra founded Hermitage Capital
Management for the purpose of investing initial seed capital of $25 million in Russia during
the period of the mass privatization after the fall of the Soviet Union. Beny Steinmetz was
another of the original investors in Hermitage, the Israeli diamond billionaire.
Cyprus is a favorite place for Russian to launder money. Thats probably why Browder and
his accounting advisor Jamison Firestone chose it to launder Browder's Russian profits.
Browder from about 1997 to the mid-2000s used Cyprus shell companies to move money out of
Russia to cheat the country of multi-millions of dollars in taxes. He used the Russian shells
to invest in shares, including Gazprom shares that were illegal for foreigners to buy in
Russia, then moved the shares to Cyprus shells
1996 article entitled, "The Money Plane," published by New York Magazine detailed how the
"Russian mob gets a shipment of up to a billion dollars in fresh $100 bills," Edmond Safra's
bank, Republic National, was directly implicated.
Guess we know where Browder got the cash money to pay for the vouchers
1998 - If Salomon had not been merged with Travelers Group in 1997 (which owned retail
brokerage, Smith Barney), no doubt Salomon Brothers would have collapsed in the 1998
Long-Term Capital Management debacle created by one of their own – Salomons John
Meriwether.
Safra lost $1 billion in Russia during the 1998 Long-Term Capital Management crisis over
Russian bonds and investments which was why he put his bank, Republic National Bank, up for
sale to HSBC in 1999.
1999 - Following the Russian financial crisis of 1998, despite significant outflows from
the fund, Hermitage became a prominent shareholder in the Russian oil and gas. It was in 1999
when VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation (Russian:
ВСМПО-АВИСМА) – the
world's largest titanium producer - filed a RICO lawsuit against Browder and other Avisma
investors including Kenneth Dart, alleging they illegally siphoned company assets into
offshore accounts and then transferred the funds to U.S. accounts at Barclays.
Browder and his co-defendants settled with Avisma in 2000; they sold their Avisma shares
as part of the confidential settlement agreement.
1999 - Republican National Bank was owned by Safra . On May 11, HSBC, announced a $10.3
billion deal to purchase Edmond Safra's holdings including the Republic National Bank of New
York and Safra's shares in Bill Browder's firm, Hermitage Capital. The announcement came only
nine months after Russia's economy collapsed and Browder's clients, lost over $900 million.
It was also nine months after $4.8 billion in IMF funds was deposited in an undisclosed
account at Safra's bank and well before the public became aware that that same money was
dispersed and stolen through the Bank of New York, off-shore companies, and foreign financial
institutions.
HSBC then became Browders partner of the Heritage Fund . Browder's shell companies were
registered in Cyprus but owned by HSBC (Guernsey) as the trustee for his Hermitage Capital
Management.
Cypriot shells Glendora and Kone were part of his offshore network "owned" by an HSBC
Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. The real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund. Assets (stocks
and money) went from Russia to Cyprus and then to parts unknown.
Republic International Trust, registered by Mossack Fonseca of Panama Papers fame and
listed on the Glendora document, was in the offshore network of Republic National Bank owner
Edmond Safra, an early investor who then held 51% of Hermitage Fund shares.
1999 December 3 - Safra was killed in suspicious fire that broke out in his Monte Carlo
home. Although some believe that Safra was killed by the Russian mafia, Lurie reported that a
Swiss prosecutor investigating the missing IMF money believed that Safra was killed "because
of his revelations to the FBI and the Swiss Prosecutor's Office investigating the
disappearance and laundering of $4.8 billion of the IMF stablilization loan." One of the more
interesting things to note here is that the prosecutor implied that Safra not only spoke with
the FBI about the missing IMF funds but with Swiss authorities as well.
Funny how Browders bosses/partners get killed
1999 - the bombings that killed nearly three hundred innocent Russians were likely the
product of a "false flag" operation that enabled Putin to consolidate power.
Putin promised to stop the plundering of the Russian state by rich oligarchs. But very few
Russians knew that Putin had been a primary actor in the same kind of activity in St.
Petersburg. And as for cleaning up corruption, one of Putin's first acts as president was to
pardon Boris Yeltsin, thereby guaranteeing immunity from prosecution to the outgoing
president.-
Putin recruited two oligarchs who were among his closest confidants, Roman Abramovich and
Lev Leviev, to undertake the highly unlikely mission of creating a new religious organization
called the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Rabbi Berel
Lazar, a leader in the Hasidic movement called Chabad-Lubavitch.
Founded in the late eighteenth century, the tiny, Brooklyn-based Chabad-Lubavitcher
movement is a fundamentalist Hasidic sect centered on the teaching of the late Rabbi Menachem
Schneerson, who is sometimes referred to as a messiah -- moshiach -- a savior and liberator
of the Jewish people. It is antiabortion, views homosexuality as a perversion, and often
aligns itself politically with other fundamentalist groups on the right.
Its biggest donors included Leviev, an Israeli billionaire who was an Uzbek native and was
known as the "King of Diamonds" thanks to his success in the diamond trade, and Charles
Kushner, an American real estate developer who was later jailed for illegal campaign
contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. Kushner is also the father of Jared
Kushner, who married Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and later became a senior adviser to
President Trump. Leviev's friendship with Lazar dates back to 1992 and, according to Haaretz,
made Leviev "the most influential, most active and most connected person in the Jewish
community of Russia and made Lazar the country's chief rabbi."
Roman Abramovich, controlled the trading arm of one of Russia's largest oil companies
through an Isle of Man company that had figured in the Bank of New York affair. Mr.
Abramovich ran the Siberian oil giant Sibneft, which sold its oil through a company called
Runicom.
His name emerged after speculation that Swiss investigators were looking into the role of
Runicom as part of the widening investigation into the laundering of up to $15 billion of
Russian money through American banks. Runicom is owned by at least two offshore companies set
up by the Valmet Group, a financial services concern partly owned by Menatep, a failed
Russian bank that used the Bank of New York."
2001- Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) collapses. Tenants include the Department of
Defense, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Securities and Exchange Commission
2005 - Steinmetz of Browders Heritage Fund teamed up with another diamond magnate, Putins
buddy Lev Leviev, to purchase the top ten floors of Israel's Diamond Tower which also houses
the Israeli Diamond Exchange. Haaretz.com reported that "the buyers intend to build a
connector from the 10 floors – the top 10 floors of the building – to the diamond
exchange itself in order to benefit from the security regime of the other offices within the
exchange." And benefit they did.
According to one website reporting on a Channel 10 (Israel) news story, from 2005 –
2011, an "underground" bank was set up to provide "loans to firms using money taken from
other companies while pretending it was legally buying and selling diamonds." The bank
apparently washed over $100 million in illicit funds over the course of six years and both
Steinmetz and Leviev were directly implicated as "customers" of the bank but Neither of them
were charged in the case.
Then there's HSBC's involvement in the diamond industry and Leviev's ties not only to arms
dealer Arcadi Gaydamak via Africa-Israeli Investments but Roman Abramovich and Kushner
2007 - Browders Hermitage Capital Management, was raided by Russian interior ministry
officers, who confiscated stamps and documents. These were then used to file bogus tax
returns to the Russian Treasury, which were paid out to bank accounts controlled by Klyuev
and his associates, according to the U.S. government.
Browder claimed Organized crime carried out the tax refund fraud against the Russian
Treasury under which criminals used collusive lawsuits to fake damages and get refunds of
company taxes. The tax refund fraud using Browder's companies netted $230 million.
2008 - HSBC (Guersey) director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the tax refund fraud in
July on behalf of Hermitage (after Starova's complaints) .
Maginitsky was arrested for being the accountant (not a lawyer) of Browder's tax evasion
schemes.
2008 - A lawsuit alleged Bayrock's projected profits were "to be laundered, untaxed
through a sham Delaware entity" to the FL Group, Iceland's largest private investment fund,
the first major firm to collapse in 2008 when Iceland's financial bubble burst, and a favored
financial instrument for loans to Russia-connected oligarchs who were, court papers claim, in
favor with Vladimir Putin. According to Bloomberg, Eva Joly, who assisted Iceland's special
prosecutor in the investigation of the financial collapse, said, "There was a huge amount of
money that came into these banks that wasn't entirely explained by central bank lending. Only
Mafia-like groups fill a gap like that."
Another significant Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal,
Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship with Semyon Kislin, the commodities trader who was
tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI, to Vyacheslav Ivankov's gang in
Brighton Beach.
In addition to being wired into the Kremlin, Sapir's son-in-law, Rotem Rosen, was a
supporter of Chabad along with Sater, Sapir, and others at Bayrock, and, as a result, was
part of an extraordinarily powerful channel between Trump and Putin. After all, the ascent of
Chabad in Russia had been part of Putin's plan to replace older Jewish institutions in Russia
with corresponding organizations that were loyal to him.
The biggest contributor to Chabad in the world was Leviev, the billionaire "King of
Diamonds" who had a direct line to Rabbi Berel Lazar, aka "Putin's rabbi," to Donald Trump,
and to Putin himself dating back to the Russian leader's early days in St. Petersburg.
Indeed, one of the biggest contributors to Chabad of Port Washington, Long Island, was
Bayrock founder Tevfik Arif, a Kazakh-born Turk with a Muslim name who was not Jewish, but
nonetheless won entry into its Chai Circle as a top donor.
2013-The Hermitage Fund, an HSBC-backed vehicle that invested in Russia and became
embroiled in a diplomatic war with the Kremlin over the death of one of its accountants,
closes down..
2014, Vekselberg's Renova Group became a partner with Wilbur Ross in the takeover of the
Bank of Cyprus, which had held billions in deposits from wealthy Russians.
Back in early 90's Trump found himself in financial trouble when his three casinos in
Atlantic City were under foreclosure threat from lenders. He was bailed-out by senior
managing director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Wilbur Ross, who Trump would later appoint
as Secretary of Commerce. Ross, who is known as the "King of Bankruptcy," specializes in
leveraged buyouts of distressed businesses.
Along with Blackstones Carl Icahn, Ross convinced bondholders to strike a deal with Trump
that allowed Trump to keep control of the casinos.
By the mid-1990s, Ross was a prominent figure in New York Democratic Party politics and
had caught the attention President Bill Clinton who appointed him to lead the U.S.-Russia
Investment Fund.
2015 - Donald Trump, after emerging from a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies,
and $ 4 billion in debt, had risen from the near-dead with the help of Bayrock and its
alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said
Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor
2015 - Kushner paid $295 million for some of the floors in the old New York Times
building, purchased in 2015 from the US branch of Israeli-Russian oligarch Leviev's company,
Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and partner, Five Mile Capital.
Kushner later borrowed $285 million from the German financial company Deutsche Bank, which
has also been linked to Russian money laundering,
Jared and Ivanka were also close to another of Putins oligarchs, Roman Abramovich and his
wife, Dasha Zhukova.
2015-While Wilbur Ross served as vice-chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, the bank's
Russia-based businesses were sold to a Russian banker and consultant, Artem Avetisyan, who
had ties to both the Russian president and Russia's largest bank, Sberbank. At the time,
Sberbank was under US and EU sanctions following Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Avetisyan had earlier been selected by Putin to head a new business branch of the Russian
president's strategic initiative agency, which was tasked with improving business and
government ties.
Avetisyan's business partner, Oleg Gref, is the son of Herman Gref, Sberbank's chief
executive officer, and their consultancy has served as a "partner" to Sberbank, according to
their website. Ross had described the Russian businesses – including 120 bank branches
in Russia – as being worth "hundreds of millions of euros" in 2014 but they were sold
with other assets to Avetisyan for €7m (£6m).
Ross resigned from the Bank of Cyprus board after he was confirmed as commerce secretary
in 2017
2018 - Cyprus suspended cooperation with Russia, which had been seeking assistance from
the government in Moscow's alleged case of tax evasion against Hermitage Capital Founder Bill
Browder.
William "Bill" Browder has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past
decade. A few months back, Der Spiegel published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky
but the mainstream media completely ignored this report and so aside from Germany few people
are aware of Browder's background and the Magnitsky issue which resulted in sanctions on
Russia.
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies
by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow
investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For a time, it was the
largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management was rated as extremely
successful after earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December
2007.
During the corrupt Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US $25 million, Browder
amassed a fortune . Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to
2006 his Hermitage firm eventually grew to $4.5 billion .
When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities he portrayed
himself as an anti-corruption activist and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act,
which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However, an examination of
Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveals contradictions with his
statements to the public and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking
corruption in Russia.
Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian
companies to adopt Western-style governance, it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized
companies he was targeting for takeover.
Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in
a company he would resort to lawsuits against this company through shell companies he
controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To
prevent its collapse the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it,
causing its stock market to rise -- with the result that Browder's profits would rise
exponentially.
Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant
Magnitsky acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft
and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5%
instead of the 35% that foreigners would have to pay.
However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign
companies and citizens from purchasing equities in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this
and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in 2008.
Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and
charged by Russian prosecutors with two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in
conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's shell
companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009 Magnitsky died in pre-trial
detention because
of a failure by prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.
Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest
and death were a targeted act of revenge by Russian authorities against a heroic
anti-corruption activist.
It's only recently that Browder's position was
challenged by the European Court of Human Rights who in its ruling on August 27, 2019
concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable
suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence." And as such "The Russians had good
reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."
"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal
proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that
prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."
Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable
activities, Browder had been refused entry to Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly
his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly
expressed by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:
[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities,
accusing them of corruption and violation of human rights. The death of his accountant and
auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch an
international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption
whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky is anything but.
Despite Brower's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic
documents
and testimonies show that Magnitsky
died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a
gallstone condition. It was negligence typical at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a
premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high level functionaries in
the prison system were fired or demoted.
For the past ten years Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by
prison guards. Without any verifiable evidence
he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18
minutes. This was never corroborated by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even
denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.
Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to
discredit and vilify Russia and its government and leaders.
In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying
beliefs and assumptions are being seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an
American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with the heading
Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :
On Fault Lines today I
revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei
Magnitsky, William Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he
was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos
were taken the next day.
Later in her report she states:
I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen
U.S. media – both allegedly progressive and mainstream -- have refused to publish this
information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant
fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.
Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was
beaten to death with rubber batons. It's this narrative that has attracted the attention of the
US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists. To further refute his
account, a 2011 analysis by the
Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder
found no evidence he was beaten to death.
In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian
documents. They were compiled immediately after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009.
Recent investigative research has revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The
first document D309 states that shortly before Magnitsky's death: "Handcuffs were used in
connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the
handcuffs were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a
forensic review states that while in the prison hospital "Magnitsky exhibited behavior
diagnosed as "acute psychosis" by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr.
Magnitsky to be restrained with handcuffs."
The second document D310 is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the
preceding sentence. The sentence in D309 has the phrase "special means were" is
changed in D310 to " a rubber baton was."
As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no
sense whatsoever, given the title and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistences,
including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310 was copied from D309 and
that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical
reports to have been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of
knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document forms a major basis for Browder's
claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.
The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a
baton attack, combined with forensic photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show
no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's deca
READ MORE: With no sign of US returning to fold, Russia is preparing to withdraw from 'Open Skies' treaty - Foreign Ministry
Putin says American presence in Afghanistan is beneficial to Moscow's interests, rubbishes claims of 'Russian bounties to Taliban'
FILE PHOTO. © Getty Images / serggn 86 147 Follow RT on
Any hope of a quiet 2021 for Russia has been dashed as one of the country's top officials warns it faces a series of court battles that risk confrontation with the West, including a fight over the world's largest legal bill.
READ MORE: 'It will be a challenging year': Russia's minister of justice talks to RT about legal battle with 'Yukos oligarchs' & 2021 outlook
READ MORE: Moscow claims win after US court rejects oligarchs' demand for seizure of Russian assets in $50bn Yukos legal battle
FILE PHOTOS. © Getty Images / artisteer; © Wikipedia 38 1 Follow RT on
Yukos case: Netherlands prepares for hearing in $50 billion plus legal battle over disgraced ex-oligarch's former oil empire
New from
Weekend Edition
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
Finian Cunningham is an award-winning journalist. For over 25 years, he worked as a sub-editor and writer for The Mirror, Irish Times, Irish Independent and Britain's Independent, among others. 14 Oct, 2020 14:56 / Updated 3 hours ago Get short URL
Five US-made F16 jets fly over the Presidential Office during Taiwan's National Day. 10.10.2020 TAIPEI, TAIWAN © Getty Images / Walid Berrazeg / SOPA Images / LightRocket 17 Follow RT on
Trump's claim he'll 'make China pay' is more pre-election saber-rattling and he'll up the ante even further over next three weeks
The Vatican's calculated snub of Mike Pompeo exposes the limits of his evangelical, ideological, China-hating foreign policy
FILE PHOTO © REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer 10 Follow RT on
matsb Jul 9, 2020 at 3:39 pm
